Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[x3kj 1247]

get it right out of the box and give more attention to competitive TvT

for competitive play i think the best compromise is doing 2 games with teamswitch inbetween. As long as there is a base balance between forces (no copy paste balance :j:) that should work.

"Mi-48B" which doesn't have troop transport capabilities

It's called Mi-28 ...

[igneous01 19]

I dont see a problem here. Missions should be done such a way that gives some sense of balance. COH did this well with the US vs Wehr Matchup - 2 Wolverines vs a panther was pretty balenced. Why not just add in some extra T72 on the opfor side? 2 T72 can kill an M1A2, plus infantry AT like the metis is also good. Or make the infantry ratio 4:3 so more units on opfor side (with inferior weapons). Insurgency did a decent job with TVT- insurgents started out inside the city with favorable terrain, while blufor had armor but needed to push into the city.

[celery 8]

I dont see a problem here. Missions should be done such a way that gives some sense of balance. COH did this well with the US vs Wehr Matchup - 2 Wolverines vs a panther was pretty balenced. Why not just add in some extra T72 on the opfor side? 2 T72 can kill an M1A2, plus infantry AT like the metis is also good. Or make the infantry ratio 4:3 so more units on opfor side (with inferior weapons). Insurgency did a decent job with TVT- insurgents started out inside the city with favorable terrain, while blufor had armor but needed to push into the city.

The time machine brought you this counterargument to which metalcraze couldn't respond:

How do you propose that someone who just joins some game knows that he isn't supposed to join the side with "only" 40% of the total players? How do you balance the vehicles in a scenario that could and will be played by only 10 players or less? In that case the side with more vehicles will have more vehicles in play and only a couple of infantry. Additionally, two inferior vehicles are more than likely to get the better of one with a few superior features, and the imbalance would just switch to that side's favor.

Also please note that CoH is a real-time strategy game with very abstract simulation and battle mechanics that are largely up to the AI that ultimately controls the units.

[liquidpinky 11]

Aw man, I thought Jay was joking during E3 when he took the piss out out of consoles with his press A to win comment.

But you guys really are going to do it aren't you?

First person to start the match and press A is the winner.

That is symmetrical balance for you, although I suppose at least both teams have the A button available.

Such fun.

What I do gather from this thread is the feeling that A3 is going to be very much PvP orientated.

There are plenty of peed off BF3 players to lure in right enough.

All I ask is that there is some third faction who are armed with junk so I can get my underdog fix please.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^^ aw come on.

It's just about giving mission makers the flexibility to create a larger variety of scenarios. Why force them to make only asymetric missions. Asymetry can be created by other environmental means aswell and there will be no shortage of mission makers willing to equip you with a makarov, and the other guy with the ammo boxes.

[chortles 263]

First person to start the match and press A is the winner.

That is symmetrical balance for you, although I suppose at least both teams have the A button available.

Such fun.

That's better balance than in previous ARMA games. :D

What I do gather from this thread is the feeling that A3 is going to be very much PvP orientated.

There are plenty of peed off BF3 players to lure in right enough.

And why SHOULDN'T BI/ARMA 3 try to lure them in? After all, why ARE these BF3 "peed off", Liquidpinky? Could it be because they were expecting the "realism" and "teamwork" that were advertised (and which they used to laugh at COD) before EA along the way during development became Captain Ahab to COD/Activision's Moby Dick? (Even MW3 paid lip service to the "teamwork" aspect with the switch to Pointstreaks.) And aren't "realism" and "teamwork" supposed to be what ARMA can do/enforce best? Heck, weren't Smookies animations meant for competitive TvT/PvP? Hasn't much of the hype surrounding the infantry being about how smooth, fluid, responsive (too much so for some laughable old fanatics' case) and otherwise like a conventional FPS* but with realistic ballistics and more stances?

In that case, these disgruntled fans who (believe that they) want a more realistic teamwork shooter are a target demographic! I can see the tagline now:

"ARMA 3: We're Even Harder-core".

* My still-favorite ARMA 3 preview of all time is Atomic PC (Australia) declaring of the E3 2012 ARMA 3 build: "Bohemia has tightened up the shooting mechanics to make it feel much more like a traditional shooter when you’re on the ground; there’s a sense of responsive twitchiness to the infantry combat that ARMA has lacked before."

Why force them to make only asymetric missions.

Because asymmetry feeds into both the "come from behind underdog" and "steamroll the opposition" wish fulfillment fantasies of the old fanatics? :rolleyes:

You are correct though... mission makers have the lead role in MP balance, but what the "mission maker balance" repeaters keep not recognizing is that BI's role (as ARMA 3 devs) is about the catalog of content in the Armory/Editor -- what vanilla/no-addons content will mission makers have to work with to populate their TvT missions with? After all, one day in the future we may get ARMA 3: Free!

(To date, one of my favorite ARMA PVP experiences ever was when, after a short training session in the use of the SMK mod's new animations, the participants were told to take each other on in free-for-all, everyone for themselves... and with everyone spawning in with a random weapon/attachment set. Balanced, but by randomness and there being no teams. :p)

EDIT: \/ What DMarkwick said after me; "the possibility to create one"

Edited August 2, 2012 by Chortles
Replied to Liquidpinky re: PVP and BF3 in particular

[dmarkwick 261]

Aw man, I thought Jay was joking during E3 when he took the piss out out of consoles with his press A to win comment.

But you guys really are going to do it aren't you?

First person to start the match and press A is the winner.

That is symmetrical balance for you, although I suppose at least both teams have the A button available.

Such fun.

What I do gather from this thread is the feeling that A3 is going to be very much PvP orientated.

There are plenty of peed off BF3 players to lure in right enough.

All I ask is that there is some third faction who are armed with junk so I can get my underdog fix please.

You seem to imagine that balancing happens regardless of mission design? That assets somehow jump out of the editor and into your current mission? I think the main thrust of this thread is not that the game must always be fair & balanced, but that the possibility to create one exists. That way, rather unbelievably, everyone is happy.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just get to the point and show + name those balanced/equal assets and those which should remain unique/typical for factions (and their very own military doctrine & strategy). :)

[Madeon 6]

and their very own military doctrine & strategy

The algorithms will be the same for all factions, if you are expecting radically different AI behaviours you will be disappointed.

[hellfire257 3]

The algorithms will be the same for all factions, if you are expecting radically different AI behaviours you will be disappointed.

Those algorithims can be affected by variables defined by the player/mission maker. They can be made different.

[Ekko 1]

This thread is stupid... balanced mp in a shooter... hahahaha!!

[chortles 263]

Those algorithims can be affected by variables defined by the player/mission maker. They can be made different.

On the other hand, what the player/mission maker does with said variables is not for BI to decide, their task is to set how much leeway the player/mission maker has to adjust said variables. ;)

This thread is stupid... balanced mp in a shooter... hahahaha!!

Someone managed to skip the last 30+ pages it looks like...

[accapella 1]

I think the response in the first page was outright stupid.

First and foremost, arma 2 is a videogame, combat might not be fair in real life, but in this game (or hardcore military simulation if you fanatics will) i should be able to expect an equal chance at winning the mission on both teams of whatever mission is being played, it takes out some of the excitement if it's given that one team or the other has really no chance and is fighting a losing battle. More or less equal chances can be achieved and thankfully IS usually achieved with things like giving quirky guerilla tools or just the plain advantage of numbers to the brown people team with outdated gear compared to the US team's shiny thermal vision, abram's tanks and apache choppers versus some cold war hinds and t-72s.

If the MP mission scenario is conventional warfare, then the insurgent team will be completely outgunned, unless they have a larger (or cheaper) stock of the inferior gear. Balance can be also achieved by altering the scenarios to be asymmetrical with different advantages to both sides.

And if one would want, he can just create a mission where the United States completely steamrolls the puny insurgents every time, just like in real war, i don't suppose it will be much fun for the insurgent team though.

Edit: Don't modify the assets towards unrealism, change the scenarios to give a good chance to both teams with the realistic assets they are given.

[chortles 263]

Here we go again:

Another lap in the discussion has been completed, it seems, as you're offering the symptoms of the problem as the remedy.

Helari, you get (thankfully unlike certain other responders) that this is a video game and not real life, but "don't modify the assets towards unrealism, change the scenarios" does nothing to answer the question.

[accapella 1]

Here we go again:Helari, you get (thankfully unlike certain other responders) that this is a video game and not real life, but "don't modify the assets towards unrealism, change the scenarios" does nothing to answer the question.

Actually it does. If the other team has 2 superior tanks, give the other team 3 of their inferior ones.

If the insurgents are getting their asses kicked in their static base by air raids, give them mobile spawnpoints like ability to build tunnel entrances as spawns so they can pop up all over the battlefield to surprise the enemy.

[chortles 263]

Actually it does. If the other team has 2 superior tanks, give the other team 3 of their inferior ones.

If the insurgents are getting their asses kicked in their static base by air raids, give them mobile spawnpoints like ability to build tunnel entrances as spawns so they can pop up all over the battlefield to surprise the enemy.

... you just described mission design, as opposed to what units/vehicles/assets actually come bundled with the editor, which is what Celery (the dev) and SOME of the posters were talking about.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Some people are just seeing that A3 should be nice for all players - regardless how arcady and/or generic it will be.... What's next - terrain/areas that are limited so no one can whine/cry about hills, valleys, trees, bushes, buildings, walls etc? 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...?)

[LeeManatee 4]

i belive sides should not be balanced, otherwise it would not be interesting to change sides if both are the same.

[dmarkwick 261]

*sigh*

[zukov 484]

question "Will Arma3's MP be balanced?"

answer "yes"

end of Thread

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Zukov: What if "Yes" and "No"? Cry + rageloop by some pvp players because of this damn 'authentic'/'real' military R&D's, strategies, tactics, doctrines etc?

[Cards525 10]

Is there really a war going on over this?

The entire point OF ARMA is to be outmatched. I want a challenge, not a chess game. Yes, its fun to play as BLUFOR In Takistan and watch A10's pummel hideouts, but at the same time I terrifically enjoy being an over-matched insurgent, making ambushes, picking off BLUFOR one by one...

Equilibrium should not be brought to any faction or side in ARMA. Ever.

[chortles 263]

Is there really a war going on over this?

The entire point OF ARMA is to be outmatched. I want a challenge, not a chess game. Yes, its fun to play as BLUFOR In Takistan and watch A10's pummel hideouts, but at the same time I terrifically enjoy being an over-matched insurgent, making ambushes, picking off BLUFOR one by one...

Equilibrium should not be brought to any faction or side in ARMA. Ever.

... and right there your vision of "what ARMA is" is far more narrow than what ARMA is (dirty little secret: a sandbox), and the war that's going on is because of said narrowness of vision.

There WILL be equilibrium... because last I checked the ARMA 3 OPFOR isn't Takistani insurgents, it's an Iran with a FIRST WORLD military. Modern heavy tanks, helos, troops with digital camo and accessorized rifles across the board... JUST LIKE BLUFOR. Best part is, because BI are writing the ARMA 3 story, it IS realistic for ARMA! ;)

Thank you Celery for staying the course through the thick and thin that this thread became... and my heartfelt thanks to all of you BI devs who've participated in this thread and others, to hold the line for the sake of bringing ARMA 3 to the 21st century when some player would keep it mired in the 20th. :)

Edited August 5, 2012 by Chortles

[dmarkwick 261]

Is there really a war going on over this?

The entire point OF ARMA is to be outmatched. I want a challenge, not a chess game. Yes, its fun to play as BLUFOR In Takistan and watch A10's pummel hideouts, but at the same time I terrifically enjoy being an over-matched insurgent, making ambushes, picking off BLUFOR one by one...

Equilibrium should not be brought to any faction or side in ARMA. Ever.

Tell me, have you actually read any of the thread? Do you realise that items cannot jump out of the editor into your mission? You're right to enjoy the mismatched battle, but don't you agree that, if someone wished to, they should be offered the possibility of making a balanced mission? Why would you deny this option? ArmA's all about options after all.

[NoRailgunner 0]

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!