Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Tonci87 163]

I will give you a cookie if you can find sufficient proof to back up your statement. FYI, I just ate that cookie because I know you can't.

This whole thread has been just going in circles because

1) party A wants a balanced selection of assets in the game

2) party B misinterprets (or assumes without reading) it as a demand for unrealistic simulation of said assets and goes into rant mode

3) party A tries to correct party B's false assumptions

4) goto 1 or 2 :banghead:

Consult message #60 to enlighten yourselves to the issue at hand:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced&p=2178210&viewfull=1#post2178210

D) People that don´t care about realism and just want completely balanced factions for the sake of PvP even if that means to introduce unrealistic stuff

[batto 17]

D) People that don´t care about realism and just want completely balanced factions for the sake of PvP even if that means to introduce unrealistic stuff

Who are those sinners? I don't remember them in this thread.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Even though i am sure that if you compare Russia to US on the internet you will find a counterpart for each vehicle in the other side ... but do you guys know something called "Assymetric balance" ?

Balance doesn't necessarely mean having a mirror like teams ,but could be also Team A having an asset to destroy a particular Team B asset but in the case,PvP games should be made to use all the game's content not just infantry as it is now !

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

The Iraq army was still using the T-34 in the Gulf War, and there were T-34's being used in the Bosnian War as well. It's not as crazy as you might think. While they may be outdated, they can be restored, even when kept in awful conditions, such as the bottom of a lake in Estonia.

http://www.mil.hiiumaa.ee/2000_09_14_kurtna_T-34-36/

Yes,but why ?? when you're making a game,you have other constraints !

[SASrecon 0]

I reckon if any balancing should be done by the devs it should be achieved by changing the availability of weapons in certain faction ammo crates, back in the day when warfare was introduced into arma, instead of grabbing your weapon of choice from an ammobox with a limited selection of weapons (determined by the game designers), they had to be bought via a menu in a base/depot/whatever, this was quite a subtle way of balancing as different weapons had different prices so everyone in the game started off with a simplistic m16/ak till they earnt enough money to get themselves a nice new toy but instead of just plonking a blufor ammocrate in the blufor base and an opfor one in the opfor base it actually involved some thought from the mission designer about manually determining if there was an opposite-team equivalent to every weapon (and vehicle for that matter), adjusting prices and/or adding/removing some weapons.

Now I think what people mean when they say 'don't balance the vanilla game, war isn't balanced, leave it up to the mission designer' is true to some extent but when you compare a regular blufor ammo crate with an opfor one, I'm pretty sure most people would go for the one standard with flir, laser pointers, fancy-optics etc. (blu), I'm not saying it's impossible to modify the contents of ammocrates, in-fact it's relatively easy, I'm just saying that some mission designers forget to do so or just assume that a blufor crate is equivalent to an opfor one.

Also remember that in ARMA3 there will be even less need to try to manually balance the game due to the fully-integrated weapon modifications, instead of mission-designers balancing their mission, it will effectively now be up to the players themselves, although I don't know how it'll work with vehicles - if they will have any form of customization.

Don't get me wrong though, I personally like unbalanced missions, e.g. if blufor has all the high-tech gear it is up to opfor to 'play cleverly', which usually means they end up winning as many people playing with blufor kit will just end up trying to barge around with their tech, succumbing to a cycle of being taken down by well-hidden opfor AA/AT then returning to base and barging around again.

Edited July 14, 2012 by SASrecon

[NoRailgunner 0]

The naivety is strong with batto and all of his "sane we's and us".... or is it just that he-we is not able to search and inform himself about military assets and how, when and why they are deployed? Guess people like him (and the OP) just want to have fun playing simple missions without having to know the advantages/disadvantages of any weapon system ingame or asset. Its just easier and more accessible for them to jump on a public server and instantly know its all well balanced, equal and there is no disturbance in the almighty tacticool pvp force from Casual Prime....

[zukov 485]

sorry guys, but is clear that this game is balanced. the iran /opfor takes a lot of his equipments from israel and seems more powerful than entire Arma series.

this future scenario opens all possibile ways to build a MP missions balanced or not.

if you want the asymmetric warfare you may use the greek guerrilla......

I don't see where is the problem

Edited July 14, 2012 by Zukov

[batto 17]

The naivety is strong with batto and all of his "sane we's and us".... or is it just that he-we is not able to search and inform himself about military assets and how, when and why they are deployed? Guess people like him (and the OP) just want to have fun playing simple missions without having to know the advantages/disadvantages of any weapon system ingame or asset. Its just easier and more accessible for them to jump on a public server and instantly know its all well balanced, equal and there is no disturbance in the almighty tacticool pvp force from Casual Prime....

Thank you for ignoring my points and almost everything what has been said in this thread. Feel free to continue repeating your "causal gamer" crap. WE (= sane PvP players) don't care.

Edited July 14, 2012 by batto

[NoRailgunner 0]

batto did you even read + understand anything other than "casual" or does just the word "casual" trigger your special "WE - the sane PvP player" attitude?

[jumpartist 0]

It's all about philosophy and tactics, should see what I can do with 300 men...

Oh wait they already made that movie.

WEll here in lies the problem alot of people arent seeing. Typically the side with less tech, makes up for it in sheer numbers. Well, you cant do that here. ArmA falls apart at 80 players, and even if that improved, I can promise its no where near a 3 to 1 ratio that might even qualify this tactic for use. So yes, the PvP or TvT side of ARMA3 needs to have some rock, paper, scissors that does not include throwing 3 times the assets of lower tech into the fight. As there simply arent enough players, and no one wants to be cannon fodder online.

Besides, Im not really seeing the big deal. If ARMA3 has enough content that ranges in capability, than both the REALSIM nuts and the PvP nuts can be catered to, as its simply a matter of including the assets in that paticular mission. If you wanna make up a scenario of Assymetric warfare, then just include or preclude whatever assets you want. simple as that.

90% of the real problems go away, if BIS properly simulates, to the best of their ability, the assets they already have. Like many have said here, no more TAB lock, or REVEAL target crap. The rest can be accomplished by looking at the assets in a manner of "what is the most likely candidate to counter any one piece of equipment" then you are close to balance and you have not mirrored anything.

[ricnunes 0]

I will give you a cookie if you can find sufficient proof to back up your statement. FYI, I just ate that cookie because I know you can't.

This whole thread has been just going in circles because

1) party A wants a balanced selection of assets in the game

2) party B misinterprets (or assumes without reading) it as a demand for unrealistic simulation of said assets and goes into rant mode

3) party A tries to correct party B's false assumptions

4) goto 1 or 2 :banghead:

Consult message #60 to enlighten yourselves to the issue at hand:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced&p=2178210&viewfull=1#post2178210

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something??

Really, since when or where did I say that the ALL units or ALL KIND of units in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA are balanced?

As far as I know the title of this thread is "Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?" so this thread as far as I know or understood (but I admit that I haven't read all the 20+ pages of this thread) is regarding any possible balancing (making both sides as equal as possible) in future ArmA3 (and consequently other possible future 'milsim' products based on ArmA3).

Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example).

I also agree that making the game more realistic such as remove the instantaneous 'TAB' locking key could in the end make the game:

1- More realistic.

2- And also more 'balancing' because with the instantaneous "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" any "rookie" can kill dozens of enemies - In real life systems like the Apache gunship helicopters are extremely deadly but they require lots of training hours for a pilot/crewman to be effective with this helicopter (the same applies to any other weapon system such as tanks, airplanes, etc...).

But one must also be carefull by simply removing "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" -> The lock key in a gunship helicopter simulates the pilot ordering it's gunner (in case it's an AI) to lock the next available target. Perhaps more than simply removing the "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" is to make the weapons behaviour much more realistic like for example in order for a laser guided missile (Hellfire for example) or SACLOS missile (AT-6 for example) to hit it's intended target that same target must always be locked (unit the missile hits the target) or else the missile would fail to hit the intended target. If a missile such as the Hellfire is already flying towards a target and the player changes the target than the missile would follow the new target (with the risk of not having enough 'energy' to reach the new target).

[-=Grunt=- 10]

I think "Balance" in ArmA would be more like having counter-parts, not exact same copies, each with their own thing while still being realistic.

Like if BLUFOR has an IFV, REDFOR needs to have some sort of IFV too. Or if REDFOR has some kind of transport/attack hybrid chopper, BLUFOR needs to have a chopper with more or less the same capability too.

[antoineflemming 14]

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something??

Really, since when or where did I say that the ALL units or ALL KIND of units in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA are balanced?

As far as I know the title of this thread is "Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?" so this thread as far as I know or understood (but I admit that I haven't read all the 20+ pages of this thread) is regarding any possible balancing (making both sides as equal as possible) in future ArmA3 (and consequently other possible future 'milsim' products based on ArmA3).

Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example).

I also agree that making the game more realistic such as remove the instantaneous 'TAB' locking key could in the end make the game:

1- More realistic.

2- And also more 'balancing' because with the instantaneous "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" any "rookie" can kill dozens of enemies - In real life systems like the Apache gunship helicopters are extremely deadly but they require lots of training hours for a pilot/crewman to be effective with this helicopter (the same applies to any other weapon system such as tanks, airplanes, etc...).

But one must also be carefull by simply removing "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" -> The lock key in a gunship helicopter simulates the pilot ordering it's gunner (in case it's an AI) to lock the next available target. Perhaps more than simply removing the "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" is to make the weapons behaviour much more realistic like for example in order for a laser guided missile (Hellfire for example) or SACLOS missile (AT-6 for example) to hit it's intended target that same target must always be locked (unit the missile hits the target) or else the missile would fail to hit the intended target. If a missile such as the Hellfire is already flying towards a target and the player changes the target than the missile would follow the new target (with the risk of not having enough 'energy' to reach the new target).

Well once again you misunderstand what balancing means, which is what Celery was saying. Balancing doesn't mean a T-90 performs the same as a M1 Abrams, with the exact same specs. Balancing means each side is actually of overall comparable strength. Individual specs may not match up (Iranian tank possibly a bit better than Nato tank) but overall each side has similar assets and in similar quantity (as in iran tank and nato tank, iran fast mover, nato fast mover, iran underwater vehicle, nato underwater vehicle). As in, one side isn't drastically an underdog. As in its not asymmetric warfare. Most wars have been conventional. When dealing with arguably two superpowers, such a war between them would be conventional, not asymmetric. Sure, fighting asymmetric battles in ArmA2 may be more challenging, but more challenging doesn't necessarily equal more realistic. Simply, balancing doesn't mean that each side'sside's technology is exactly the same, with a different look. It basically means comparable strength. So like a T-90 and an M1 Abrams. They aren't carbon copies, but each side has that kind of an asset. And don't forget, part of balancing is making sure that each side has technology fitting for the time period. Some complaints about ArmA2's Russians was that they had Soviet weapons basically. And, as has been said, as long as BIS stays true to realism with the technology and factions, there wont be any need for balancing for MP. The factions will automatically balance out.

[celery 8]

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something??

+2 for insulting a forum member.

Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example).

Like I've already said, group B assumes too much about the agenda and motives of group A, probably something to do with hasty conclusions without actually reading what's up.

The whole issue here is which assets are put in the game to begin with, not how they are simulated from a balancing standpoint. That's why I urged you to read post #60, because it shows quite clearly how balancing has been done in the past three titles. So balancing, in Operation Flashpoint's case, would be having the T-80 instead of the T-72 as the best tank that the Soviets have. Arma 1 is poorly balanced because OPFOR's best (and only) tank is the T-72 going against the M1A1, the only tank that BLUFOR has. Are you starting to see what this is all about?

Edited July 15, 2012 by Celery

[zamani532 1]

Its because BIS does not care about OPFOR, every single fucking DLC has been Blufor, PMC are basically blufor.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Its because BIS does not care about OPFOR, every single fucking DLC has been Blufor, PMC are basically blufor.

well why should they? BIS are from Czech Republic, Czech Republic is NATO, NATO is Bluefor, so yeah, why should they care much about their potential enemies?

If BIS would implement in ARMA 2, anything opfor had to offer, larger weaponry, dynamic armor and SHTORA various tank defence systems, opfor actually would be in slight advantage over bluefor.:)

[zamani532 1]

well why should they? BIS are from Czech Republic, Czech Republic is NATO, NATO is Bluefor, so yeah, why should they care much about their potential enemies?

If BIS would implement in ARMA 2, anything opfor had to offer, larger weaponry, dynamic armor and SHTORA various tank defence systems, opfor actually would be in slight advantage over bluefor.:)

Because nobody likes the current bias as fuck direction they keep sliding towards.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Because nobody likes the current bias as fuck direction they keep sliding towards.

but funny thing, in Project Reality mod for example, opfor owns/owned about 70% matches, with ak-74's and few SVD's only. So it's not always about balance, but about skills. It's even a bigger shame, that more high technical equiped team, loses to outdated ones.

[NoRailgunner 0]

There is no such "balance" in real military R&D, combat tactics & strategies - its only in those minds of some pvp players who are uberafraid of a unfair A3 pvp battles. Every military is in fact trying to outrun the other, be more advanced in certain areas and improve others. How many aircraft carriers/fleets the US have - how many have Russia or China or Iran? How much ahead are certain countries in developments in eg sensor, radar or UAV/SUAS developments/tech? Its just a very naive to assume that everything has something like a "balanced" or "equal" counterpart or "must have". Now, would it be that bad and evil if BIS will create and make things somewhat unique to each side/faction and not comparable or balanced/equal? Until today there are no authentic/realistic examples of possible balanced A3 units/assets from those who want them. Just wonder if these people did ever inform themselves about military stuff or if they are just happy with some CS/BF style + maps/missions? Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

[NeuroFunker 11]

Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

to make it more enjoyable for everyone? If 1 team has bigger advantage over other, and everyone knows that, who would want to play in weaker team? Only freaks perhaps.

[celery 8]

There is no such "balance" in real military R&D, combat tactics & strategies - its only in those minds of some pvp players who are uberafraid of a unfair A3 pvp battles. Every military is in fact trying to outrun the other, be more advanced in certain areas and improve others. How many aircraft carriers/fleets the US have - how many have Russia or China or Iran? How much ahead are certain countries in developments in eg sensor, radar or UAV/SUAS developments/tech? Its just a very naive to assume that everything has something like a "balanced" or "equal" counterpart or "must have". Now, would it be that bad and evil if BIS will create and make things somewhat unique to each side/faction and not comparable or balanced/equal? Until today there are no authentic/realistic examples of possible balanced A3 units/assets from those who want them. Just wonder if these people did ever inform themselves about military stuff or if they are just happy with some CS/BF style + maps/missions? Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

Read this:

Like I've already said, group B assumes too much about the agenda and motives of group A, probably something to do with hasty conclusions without actually reading what's up.

The whole issue here is which assets are put in the game to begin with, not how they are simulated from a balancing standpoint. That's why I urged you to read post #60, because it shows quite clearly how balancing has been done in the past three titles. So balancing, in Operation Flashpoint's case, would be having the T-80 instead of the T-72 as the best tank that the Soviets have. Arma 1 is poorly balanced because OPFOR's best (and only) tank is the T-72 going against the M1A1, the only tank that BLUFOR has. Are you starting to see what this is all about?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hehe, one could also say that "only simple minded freaks are playing (super-)balanced milgames".

• 
  
• Reason #1: these players don't want to know and don't want to care about how milstuff works.
  
• Reason #2: these players/mission makers only care about their balanced pvp and go by the numbers of assets not by use of mission time, terrain/mission area, mission weather, amount of (re-)supply aswell and use of respawn/revive etc
  
• Reason #3: most of them just want simple fun maps/missions
  

So again what's wrong having assets for each side/faction that are not comparable, not equal and not artificially "balanced" just for the sake of it? Are Arma milgame player just become crybabies who just can't improvise, adapt and overcome tricky situations? Or is it once again just a bunch of pvp players who can't deal with different and not always equal/balanced assets?? If one want to play a more authentic A3 - one should be able to enjoy certain differences of each side/faction ingame and the difference to other games aswell. :)

[batto 17]

So again what's wrong having assets for each side/faction that are not comparable, not equal and not artificially "balanced" just for the sake of it?

Nothing.

Wider variety of EXISTING and REALISTIC assets for both sides will NOT affect you at all. If you're not interested in balanced games why don't you just leave this thread? Why are you still repeating same crap (you = hardcore veteran, we = CoD kiddies) again and again?

Edited July 16, 2012 by batto

[NeuroFunker 11]

exactly, wishing an balanced game is nothing wrong, but wishing an unbalanced game, cause it's milsim, is a bit weird. For example, we could wish no respawn system in multiplayer - you die, buy a new game, you were not careful with your one and only life!

[NoRailgunner 0]

Batto and Neurofunker please point me where I exactly said "you = hardcore veteran, we = CoD kiddies"? Or are you just out of arguments and now trying to twist words/make something up? :rolleyes:

[Timnos 1]

So again what's wrong having assets for each side/faction that are not comparable, not equal and not artificially "balanced" just for the sake of it?

Are you suggesting that one of the factions must have inferior weapons?