Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

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.

All for it, though I would add that A3 is also very much a sandbox and it is to everyones benifit to cater for as many game modes as possible, esp' if it's as simple as providing 'force for force' as DMarkwick put it. Meaning the game comes with adequate assets to create symetrical, and aysymetrical, missions and campaigns, coop, PvP, TvT, any wich way the mission maker wants it.

Seems that the problem is that some people don't like or can't get their head around to tryout something new/different.

~Not sure, asymetrical has always been the way of things if you wanted to use more than infantry.

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 ?? :)

That might work but I still think we all have more to gain with a better asset selection. Asstes are a simpler solution, still a bit of work but simpler, wich also give people more variety in other missions as well. And as a 'sim fan' who would still like some casual play on ArmA, I'd probably rage quit if all the PvP/TvT servers were set to 'balanced'.

Still havn't had time to go through all we know and sugest what might be good assets to counter those available but in all honesty its probably not worth doing till we atleast get a look at the alpha.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[moizeus 1]

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.

Well said.

[chortles 263]

NOT well said, because this talk of balance IS to "overcome" the past problems that Celery outlined. ;)

[Madeon 6]

Most Arma missions are usually small unit actions, roughly reinforced platoon v's reinforced platoon sized engagements, so balance is essential if players want to engage in prolonged firefights. Personally I find unbalanced missions extremely boring, I'm not interested in a series short sharp firefights where one side has overwhelming firepower and/or numbers and steamrolls over the other side.

The most exciting missions are the one's that lead to long and intense firefights, I want balance, not whack-a-mole COD style trash.

[chortles 263]

Which in turn means that we need to have enough equivalent units and vehicles on both sides within ARMA 3 to support the making of such a mission as you described.

[Madeon 6]

Which in turn means that we need to have enough equivalent units and vehicles on both sides within ARMA 3 to support the making of such a mission as you described.

That's right.

[chortles 263]

If you haven't already seen the latest GameStar video (6/7, supports), OPFOR seems to have a "Hunter RCWS," so whatever its stats are, its name seems to imply that it's an OPFOR counterpart to the BLUFOR Strider RCWS seen in previous videos.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Can't wait to hear all those "balance all!11!!!!" tacticool fanatics if the RAH-66 Comanche or the (possible) BMPT are doing their badass attacks ..... but maybe BIS will have mercy with those special casual tacticool fastmovers and add only some authentic and totally evil + imbalanced assets to A3! Btw is it the game who does make the missions and place/add all balanced + imba stuff into the mission? Is it the game who choose the time, terrain/area, gear/equipment and support for each side/faction in the mission? Is it the game who selects the conditions to promote/degrade, add/decrease points or spawn places in missions? ;)

[chortles 263]

Btw is it the game who does make the missions and place/add all balanced + imba stuff into the mission?

It's the devs who "place/add all balanced + imba stuff into the" Editor for the mission maker to pick from. ;)

[dmarkwick 261]

Can't wait to hear all those "balance all!11!!!!" tacticool fanatics if the RAH-66 Comanche or the (possible) BMPT are doing their badass attacks ..... but maybe BIS will have mercy with those special casual tacticool fastmovers and add only some authentic and totally evil + imbalanced assets to A3! Btw is it the game who does make the missions and place/add all balanced + imba stuff into the mission? Is it the game who choose the time, terrain/area, gear/equipment and support for each side/faction in the mission? Is it the game who selects the conditions to promote/degrade, add/decrease points or spawn places in missions? ;)

No. Which is kind of the point of the whole pro-balance assets thing - they don't absolutely have to be in every mission.

If the assets are there, they can either be used or not used. If they're not there, they can only not be used. It's a simple maths thing :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Same can be said about authentic/realistic/imba assets - mission makers can use them but don't have to use them.... Guess its not so comfortable to have a choice but be fully limited to (arcade/gamey) balanced assets? Simple games for simple players.... :)

[chortles 263]

Same can be said about authentic/realistic/imba assets - mission makers can use them but don't have to use them.... Guess its not so comfortable to have a choice but be fully limited to (arcade/gamey) balanced assets? Simple games for simple players.... :)

At which point the right answer is "have them both". ;)

I mean, what with the Iranians of 2035 having a 'first-world standard' military with Merkavas, Tavors and even more high-tech/futuristic-looking soldier outfits than BLUFOR, BI has already thrown "authentic" out the window kicking and screaming. :D Likewise, I trust BI with realistic simulation of the stuff that exists in real life... but the rest, they can just make up. For example, the BLUFOR assault rifle* used in the E3-and-onward videos... and the "Mi-48". :rolleyes:

* In fairness, the caliber it's stated to use DOES exist in real life under the name 6.5 mm Grendel.

[celery 8]

"balance all!11!!!!" tacticool fanatics

but maybe BIS will have mercy with those special casual tacticool fastmovers

Simple games for simple players.... :)

You want another infraction this soon? :)

[chortles 263]

"A wild CELERY has appeared!"

Should I go into hiding at this time?

[dmarkwick 261]

Same can be said about authentic/realistic/imba assets - mission makers can use them but don't have to use them

EXACTLY! :) have them ALL is what I'm saying. Have all the imbalanced assets you like but also have the option to select from balanced assets. Is it really too difficult to conceive? :)

.... Guess its not so comfortable to have a choice but be fully limited to (arcade/gamey) balanced assets? Simple games for simple players.... :)

Except no-one is saying that. Except you :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

NoRailgunner, seeing as you insist on the notion that missions makers are the balancing force here, how about you mod your game later on to include inter-continental ballistic missiles for the opposing team, while you sport an umbrella and a medkit? :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Thats why i suggested to make an option during the start of A3 - so everyone (incl. casual, simfan, simple or advanced player....) can choose with which type or sort of game assets - for example "balanced"/"default"/"sim" - he want to play. No need to make ingame assets that are only from the look/style different but in their core just "balanced"/"equal"/"equivalent units and vehicles on both sides".... Btw still missing good examples of possible authentic balanced + unbalanced A3 assets = no cookies for you! (Anyway good to see at least that people agree that its not the game who puts (all) the game assets in the mission/map....) :D

[Madeon 6]

NoRailgunner you don't have to select balanced assets for each side if you don't want to, you as mission maker have the freedom to choose what assets you deem most suitable for your mission scenario. Nobody is forcing mission designers to select balanced assets, for fucks sake is it really that hard for you to understand?

[Deadfast 43]

...is it really that hard for you to understand?

Judging by the fact this thread is 42 pages long I'd say yes.

[chortles 263]

Thats why i suggested to make an option during the start of A3 - so everyone (incl. casual, simfan, simple or advanced player....) can choose with which type or sort of game assets - for example "balanced"/"default"/"sim" - he want to play.

Yet AGAIN you mistake what others are saying... I for one insist that mission makers are not the balancing force, but rather the UNBALANCING force, so you clearly seem to have the opposite idea on how this should work from both the rest of us and from BI/Celery.

As for the lack of "good examples of possible authentic balanced + unbalanced A3" assets... I already said that ARMA 3 IS NOT AUTHENTIC. :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

No sorry, my idea was more about a internal config-switch at start so no one can be mad about his own basic A3 selection or blame the game for having superior and inferior assets if he don't want it. Simple + userfriendly feature just clicky-dicky! :)

[chortles 263]

An internal config switch actually SEEMS more clunky and complex and not user-friendly than simply letting the mission maker do IMbalance (notice how I did not say "let the mission maker do balance")...

EDIT: Celery has weighed in the Tunguska example more than once in this thread... but that didn't stop NoRailgunner.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Chortles

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

No sorry, my idea was more about a internal config-switch at start so no one can be mad about his own basic A3 selection or blame the game for having superior and inferior assets if he don't want it. Simple + userfriendly feature just clicky-dicky! :)

Overly complex, you'd have to create 300 unique units to accomplish this. We already have decent balance in ArmA II, but you insist that Tunguska is "realistic", "a-OK" for PVP. IT ISN'T.

Final example: If you include the Tunguska, BLUFOR jets become obsolete - so you can't have this multiplayer scenario in a PVP mission; 2) if you replace the Tunguska with a similar unit in its OPFOR class - the Shilka, then BLUFOR jets will make every OPFOR ground unit obsolete.

So, to summarise: you can't have a scenario with both Tunguska and jets present; you also can't have a scenario without the Tunguska and jets present.

Tunguska is the problem, wouldn't you agree?

[Tonci87 163]

No! The Tunguska is fine, the jets are nerfed too much. Read the Tunguska Thread in Arma 2 & OA General.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Iroquois Pliskin - imo for an authentic / "realistic" modern Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground combat in A2OA with planes one would need much bigger islands/maps aswell as proper working radar/EW features. Guess BIS made the general decision of having less SACLOS guided missiles/weapons in A2OA because some people would complain even more about imbalance or unfair stuff. Just search for Metis-M (AT-13) and compare it to the Javelin system in real and in A2OA. If people want to experience + play with somewhat more authentic stuff in a game they have to deal with certain different and "unbalanced" systems for each side/faction. The mission makers and players have only to become familiar with A3 and get to know about the advantages/disadvantages of weapons/vehicles/aircrafts/ships.... = main + challenging task for BIS tutorial/training mission maker(s)! :cool: