Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[NeuroFunker 11]

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:

i don't know? I wasn't reffering to this...

[celery 8]

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. :)

+2 infraction points for spamming/trolling/flamebaiting after being prompted to read an exceptionally clear clarification of the matter at hand. This thread is tiresome to read because some people refuse to acknowledge what the other party is actually trying to say, and you are the worst offender, ranting against an imaginary standpoint throughout the whole thread with numerous attempts made to correct your false assumptions. You obviously don't read posts made by others or you just want to stir shit up, so I'm asking you to stop this inconstructive and tiresome spamming. Further posts of this sort from you will receive similar attention.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Celery

[antoineflemming 14]

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

That's what it sounds like. I bet this thread will be closed soon. It really should. Celery has tried to explain what balancing means. I've tried. Others have tried. But seems like there are certain members here who automatically assume that balancing is artificially done. NoRailgunner, no one is talking about artificially balancing just for the sake of it. What I understand it to be is making sure that, technology and asset-wise, that factions have the latest versions of their technology. As in not having one faction with 2000s era tech and another with 50s era tech, when that faction or country in real life has 2000s era tech. In other words, it's about not artificially imbalancing factions/sides just for the sake of having asymmetric gameplay. Which, honestly, seems to be what you are suggesting. Really seems like you want asymmetric gameplay, imbalanced sides, "just for the sake of it".

[jumpartist 0]

Yeah I have tried to stay open minded in this thread, but I have to say, NoRailGunner, You are really killing the whole conversation.

However, I now fully understand what Celery is talking about. Not one of us can accurately predict what the geo-political climate will be in the future. Let alone the state of any military's technology. From what I can tell from the plot it sounds as if its been a tough conventional conflict where one side (NATO) has really been getting its tail handed to them, so perhaps there may be some asymetric aspects afterall (but not in the typical way some want it to occur). So to me its making perfect sense to have conventional forces which tend to be matched pretty well, slugging it out in a hard fought but possibly losing battle.

I do hope this thread is closed soon. I fear going around, is coming around, again.

[TheDAWinz 1]

I understand why Arma 2 is unbalanced, as real life NATO>> Russia, T-90 variants are all as good as a regular M1A1, but ground side, they are terrible just like in real life. That is why people have to overcome the disperity of the technological gap (as in real life) and try to find a way to defeat the NATO forces, but in real life, Russia is so poorly trained and outdated its not even funny. They put all of their tech up front and try to scare NATO, but NATO have stuff 50 years more advance than what they show us. OPFOR are scared. ш лтщц ершы Ñ„Ñ‹ Ñ„ афÑе!

Edit: and There are only so few T-90's! Only a couple hundred compared to the thousands of BLUFOR tanks!

Edited July 19, 2012 by TheDAWinz

[Timnos 1]

NATO have stuff 50 years more advance than what they show us.

[rye1 21]

50 years more advanced, huh? They must be super cool to hang around with bro. Tell me more about your encounters with them.

[TheDAWinz 1]

50 years more advanced, huh? They must be super cool to hang around with bro. Tell me more about your encounters with them.

Mach 20 Hypersonic aircraft. F-22 raptor wasn't unveiled until the 21st century. F-117 Nighthawk was in development in the late 60's. Railgun tech that will be implemented on ships in a couple of years. Nanotechnology, exosuits. Enough said.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

In terms of simulation, BIs record on armament is superb, but it terms of balanced multiplayer gameplay its not, and arguably has never been for the sake of realism. This question has been posed in previous titles (OFP/Arma1/Arma2) but since BI has taken the liberty of extending the timeline of their next IP into the future, I was wondering if there was anything mentioned on the subject of having equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides since they have the liberty to stretch what is realistic and what is not..

Honestly I dont actualy agree with the first half of the OP's statment, previously it simply required some knowledge base of both players and mission makers to understand the context the various assets were developed and deployed in,(no short supply amongst this crowd) and though Celery is right, and that particular balance/imbalance has forced some lateral thinking to achieve certain PvP game types, I have enjoyed it over the years. Though I can see how the opening sentance has come close to derailling the OP's actual question.

If anyones still trying to figure out whats going on just re-read this (important) bit again

but since BI has taken the liberty of extending the timeline of their next IP into the future, I was wondering if there was anything mentioned on the subject of having equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides since they have the liberty to stretch what is realistic and what is not..

Well all I can say to that is,I dont recall hearing anything mentioned particularly, but from what we've seen sofar, we could assume a yes.

After all the Opfor forces seem to be utilising some high tech infantry toys as well as stolen western/Israeli designs. So it appears that there has been some leveling 1 for 1, Blufor V Opfor. And I think that BIS has set up the perfect context to make it so. Why else would Iran have the balls to step on Greece if it didn't have the teeth.

So this thread has at least shown also that many (and I'll admit myself included) will also be somewhat pissed if this boiled down to a bunch of purely generic classes defined by a model tweak or different texture. But there is still so much we don't know about whats to come yet, so casting such doubts tend to be a little OT and need to come with the qualifier 'this is my premature fear'

Curously, one of the first things to come to my mind when ArmA3 was first announced was that this was going to be more of a 'Resistance' type campaign and I had imagined that BIS's intial statement, to the effect that they weren't including as many equipment assets in A3, was because they aren't needed as much when your behind enemy lines, getting your stuff from the enemy etc. So maybe (dare I say it) there is yet some context for 'generic' stuff. Nothing to do but wait and see.

[gossamersolid 155]

Russia is so poorly trained

I don't think so.

[igneous01 19]

I don't think so.

agreed. Russians are just as well trained as any other army. Only difference is doctrine. Russian helicopters and Ground AA vehicles scared NATO for the longest time.

[avfc 10]

If you can't beat Abrams with your AK - get creative.

Or stay the f out of its way!

Agreed with mos tof the above though, arma is about tactics and teamwork and the team that has the better of that will will everytime regardless of what army or technology they have.

[celery 8]

Or stay the f out of its way!

Agreed with mos tof the above though, arma is about tactics and teamwork and the team that has the better of that will will everytime regardless of what army or technology they have.

And when the teams have equally or comparably good teamwork and tactics?

[avfc 10]

And when the teams have equally or comparably good teamwork and tactics?

Then you have a very good game of arma on your hands.

[nkenny 1051]

@Celery

The luckiest side wins, be sure to stock up.

[celery 8]

Then you have a very good game of arma on your hands.

The side with the Abrams, F-35 and dual sighted 7.62mm rifles will have a better time, I'd wager.

[avfc 10]

The side with the Abrams, F-35 and dual sighted 7.62mm rifles will have a better time, I'd wager.

Not in my experience no, tunguskas destroy most of the aerial assets instantly atleast in mods like warfare because of the really simple tab lock system. Ive been in plenty of games as blufor where we lost because the other team used their assets better.

[celery 8]

Not in my experience no, tunguskas destroy most of the aerial assets instantly atleast in mods like warfare because of the really simple tab lock system. Ive been in plenty of games as blufor where we lost because the other team used their assets better.

And when the mission maker has a basic sense of balancing and takes away the Tunguska and F-35?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

The side with the Abrams, F-35 and dual sighted 7.62mm rifles will have a better time, I'd wager.

Well in my experience its not as good as being on Opfor and owning Blufor under these conditions.

And when the mission maker has a basic sense of balancing and takes away the Tunguska and F-35?

If the mission maker feels its required then its still good. After all its the mission makers baby and they should be in the best position to judge these things. And at the end of day theres never any shortage of folks that will tell you your wrong. Or try to convince you that the reality in thier heads is the one that SHOULD have played out in front of them. I've been RPG'n, tabletop'n, RTS'n and mock field combat'n (historical re-enacting) for decades and I know its realy hard coming up with scenarios that are percieved as 'balanced' without coming up with some symetrical solution, and often its warranted, but I also realy like good asymetrical missions ie. Insugency.

@Celery I realy don't think you have anything to worry about either way. I've played many of your missions in the past and I have no doubt that whatever folks may say about balancing, they WILL be playing your missions.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[avfc 10]

And when the mission maker has a basic sense of balancing and takes away the Tunguska and F-35?

Well then you defeat your original point about blufor having the f35 dont you? In the games ive played ive seen plenty of winners from both sides.

[celery 8]

Well then you defeat your original point about blufor having the f35 dont you? In the games ive played ive seen plenty of winners from both sides.

One side still has the Abrams, AV-8B and dual-sighted 7.62mm rifles going against T-90, L-39 and some AKs. Both teams are equally good at teamwork, i.e. the underdog is not tactically superior. Which side is more likely to win?

[igneous01 19]

One side still has the Abrams, AV-8B and dual-sighted 7.62mm rifles going against T-90, L-39 and some AKs. Both teams are equally good at teamwork, i.e. the underdog is not tactically superior. Which side is more likely to win?

Theres also the SU-34, and opfor weapons is much more than 'some AKs' - they have PSO scopes and GL attachments just like the M16/M4 counter parts. Theres PKP and PKM which kick ass. Abrams vs T-90 is spiffy to say the least, but everything else seems pretty level to me. I think the issue here is "I only play with BLUFOR, therefore I dont know how to handle Opfor AKs and weapons, therefore they must be inferior weapons"

[celery 8]

Theres also the SU-34

Which is laughably inferior against the Harrier, and doesn't really cut it in air-to-ground either.

and opfor weapons is much more than 'some AKs' - they have PSO scopes and GL attachments just like the M16/M4 counter parts. Theres PKP and PKM which kick ass.

Heavy SCAR with ACOG and CQB sight cannot be matched by any OPFOR weapon, and we don't even have to go that far to notice that OPFOR weapons have much less versatility and variety. PKP has US counterparts with similar (or TWS) scopes.

I think the issue here is "I only play with BLUFOR, therefore I dont know how to handle Opfor AKs and weapons, therefore they must be inferior weapons"

Yes, that clearly must be the issue here, and not that asset imbalance will decide the match when the teams don't have a noticeable difference in skill. The original argument against balancing here was that "arma is about tactics and teamwork and the team that has the better of that will will everytime regardless of what army or technology they have", which in itself is a fallacy because the intention of balancing is to provide an even game when the teams are comparably good.

[Timnos 1]

the intention of balancing is to provide an even game when the teams are comparably good.

This makes perfect sense, mission success should be attained by 'tactical proficiency', not by superior weaponry.

[b00ce 160]

Which is laughably inferior against the Harrier, and doesn't really cut it in air-to-ground either.

Are drugs legal in CZ land? Because you simply must be high. :icon_razz:

The SU-34 is one of my most feared and loved aircraft. I'd wager to say that it is the BEST aircraft in vanilla for both air-air and air-ground engagements. Give me an SU-34 and I will take out 6 Main battle tanks and the men around them, scores of other men and light vehicles and 4 harriers before having to resort to guns. You just have to know the subtle nuances of Sukoi flight in ArmA, like keeping your airspeed as high as possible and not doing too tight of turns. Once you get the feel for her, you'll enjoy taking naps, making sandwiches & coffee, and using the on-board toilet while you rain death and hellfire down upon your enemies. ;)

I'd say that the aircraft are pretty balanced, though Russia gets a slight advantage.(Mostly due to the turd of an aircraft called the F-35, which I hope has been improved in ArmA3 - Please give it external pylons so it can have more than 2 missiles and 2 bombs.)

I'd say that Russia is better all around than the USMC. I won't talk about the Takistani army. They're vastly inferior to the Army in almost every way.

Vodnik (Especially the BPPU version) > HMMWV

BTR-90 > LAV-25

BMP-2/3 > AAV

T-90 - M1A2

SU-25 > A-10 (In everything but the gun)

SU-34 > Harrier

Tunguska. Umm... yeah. Just Tunguska.

The Ak-107 is on par with the M-16.

The Metis is on par with the Javelin.

The RPG-7 is better than the MAAWS or SMAW.

The Igla and Strela are about the same as the Stinger.

And the PKP is on par with the OA 240 with Eclan.