Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

@chortles so you mean its basically ok to paint the blufor rah-66 comanche just in opfor camo.... Guess bis could have an easy job and sell an "a3 pvp only" game for the casual pvp crowd. Who needs authentic or realistic games/simulations if some people just like to play with balanced assets that aren't different or just by the look/style? :p

Wat. FPDR

FPDR

FPDR

[NoRailgunner 0]

Wat - until today no one from the "this is imba!!" crew couldn't point out or give examples - its all just smoke and shadows with "sides/factions should have equivalent/similar/"equal" assets. Well maybe its too hard to search and find military developments that could possibly be called "comparable" and authentic for Blufor + OPFOR in A3? Where is the problem of making a possible balanced Blufor/OPFOR list and a possible unbalanced Blufor/OPFOR list? Little sidenote - Iranian Forces must have some awesome "better" weapons and stuff - just look at the long way + time they've battled through to reach Limnos. What about US bases that actually surround Iran or those US/UK carrier fleets, ships and other military bases in the Mediterranean Sea..... If A3 would be about balanced assets - how does the A3 story and timeline fit in the first place? :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Wat - until today no one from the "this is imba!!" crew couldn't point out or give examples

Don't start this, I gave plenty of examples in this thread. If you want hypothetical lists of assets, head to Wiki and compose them yourself. It is the concept that matters, not the details.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Nice try, for Blufor you can make up your ideas but for OPFOR you simply go with "make Iranian equivalent".... Btw what if the details do matter such as speed, altitude, effective fire range, additional storage compartment/passenger cabin, fire-forget-capability, sensor/radar range, possibility to start/land/fly autonomous, communications or mission details like area of operation, time and support options etc ?? It's the mission makers call to create + arrange the map/mission. On a bad thought, it could be easier and perhaps faster to make something if there are only smaller combat areas, only balanced assets and less stuff in a game. Like limiting the choices and options for all....

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Nice try, for Blufor you can make up your ideas but for OPFOR you simply go with "make Iranian equivalent".... Btw what if the details do matter such as speed, altitude, effective fire range, additional storage compartment/passenger cabin, fire-forget-capability, sensor/radar range

There's a reason why a thermonuclear war between the two Superpower had never occurred - physics are not limited to one side of the globe, you will always have a counter to the enemy's arsenal within half a generation margin.

Take the Su-34 and tell me why it should be going against the single seat F35/AV8B, why not the Su-27? Tank selection: Why T-72, and not T-80 as an intermediary? With Iran, I can't speculate what assets BIS choose to employ, but there's a reason the Merkava tank is in the game.

[chortles 263]

Well maybe its too hard to search and find military developments that could possibly be called "comparable" and authentic for Blufor + OPFOR in A3?

Or maybe we're not looking for "authentic" at all?

Where is the problem of making a possible balanced Blufor/OPFOR list and a possible unbalanced Blufor/OPFOR list? Little sidenote - Iranian Forces must have some awesome "better" weapons and stuff - just look at the long way + time they've battled through to reach Limnos. What about US bases that actually surround Iran or those US/UK carrier fleets, ships and other military bases in the Mediterranean Sea..... If A3 would be about balanced assets - how does the A3 story and timeline fit in the first place? :)

The answer is "whatever excuses balanced assets." :) No, I'm really serious here, with over twenty-five years of uncovered timeline to work with, BI can already do anything with the storyline to take it from the events of PMC/TOH to the events of ARMA 3.

[Deadfast 43]

@Chortles so you mean its basically ok to paint the Blufor RAH-66 Comanche just in OPFOR camo.... guess BIS could have an easy job and sell an "A3 pvp only" game for the casual pvp crowd. Who needs authentic or realistic games/simulations if some people just like to play with balanced assets that aren't different or just by the look/style? :p

Hi, welcome to 45 pages ago!

Please explain to me how you determine the realism/authenticity of a made up asset.

[chortles 263]

Please explain to me how you determine the realism/authenticity of a made up asset.

The best part of this. I can already say that as of the Gamescom build:

• Both the BLUFOR and OPFOR have assault rifles in the seemingly same caliber of 6.5mm (in the case of the MX it was identified as 6.5x39, whose closest match I know of the real world is the 6.5mm Grendel, which is NOT officially issued by any military), suggesting that they even use the same magazines... to my knowledge there's also no conversion kit for the TAR-21 (the in-game model appears to be the CTAR-21) for rechambering in 6.5mm Grendel.
  
• Not only is the BLUFOR MX 6.5mm AR fictional altogether, but the Mk 20 is a fictional longer-barreled F2000 variant than even the real-world semiauto-only FS2000 Tactical.
  
• The SDAR 6.5mm is a fictional rifle altogether whose appearance is a Kel-Tec RFB carbine with fixed iron sights instead of an optics rail and whose (stamped?) logo mark declares "TIAN TIAN RFL 7.62 NATO" (whoops!).
  
• The "Mi-48 Hamoc" (?) is made up, while the AH-9 appears to be a Little Bird successor.
  
• The Vector SMG 9mm is a rechambered KRISS Vector in 9mm with a 30-shot magazine (which has the CZ SCORPION EVO III A1 image in the inventory).

I can't help but imagine that going "future warfare" helped free up money for the game and engine development by not having to pay licensing costs... :D

[iratus 71]

Bear in mind that the game still is in alpha, thus things may change during development. BIS may use "placeholder calibers" and "placeholder magazines" at the moment for not fully implemented/tested calibers as they use placeholder images in the inventory. They do not want tho show "strangely behaving" projectiles at a public presentation for sure. (That's probably also the reason why we did not see any soldier launched rocket systems yet).

[chortles 263]

Placeholders possibly, but I imagine that it also gives BI more room to work with without being justifiably called out on people's ideas of realism (I say justifiably since of course people will call them out on their perceived idea of realism no matter what anyway).

[Haystack15 10]

Where's the logic in that? What if both teams have "good players"? Obviously, assets decide the game then.

Sarcasm post, not meant to be taken seriously...

[chortles 263]

Apologies Haystack15, with what this thread's been infested (and frankly my view of the forums "community") with we couldn't tell the sarcasm from "someone actually believes this incredibly wrong thing". :(

[NoRailgunner 0]

Thread conclusion: some pvp players confirmed that they don't want to have + enjoy an authentic military game and gameplay in A3. Now they are trying hard to convince BIS + others that pvp is the "only" saviour for Arma franchise and all focus should be on public pvp gameplay. Imo that simply means to dumb down A3 to an average casual shooter where players just join public servers for their own stats/achievement unlocks. Or does one really think or believe that on public servers competetive gameplay + teamwork is only a matter of balanced assets? This so called "competetive gameplay" does only work best on locked servers or if the server admin/mod is forcing people to like certain rules and restricticions eg unit/weapon setups etc.

[dmarkwick 261]

Thread conclusion: some pvp players confirmed that they don't want to have + enjoy an authentic military game and gameplay in A3. Now they are trying hard to convince BIS + others that pvp is the "only" saviour for Arma franchise and all focus should be on public pvp gameplay. Imo that simply means to dumb down A3 to an average casual shooter where players just join public servers for their own stats/achievement unlocks. Or does one really think or believe that on public servers competetive gameplay + teamwork is only a matter of balanced assets? This so called "competetive gameplay" does only work best on locked servers or if the server admin/mod is forcing people to like certain rules and restricticions eg unit/weapon setups etc.

I should say that's more like a NoRailgunner conclusion, given that it's entirely based around the notion that all games will somehow become "balanced" merely because the possibility exists to make a balanced game. It's like there's no understanding of "possibility". Do you imagine that "balanced" assets will jump out of the editor into all missions?

In any case, the post looks a little "trolly" ;)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Thread conclusion: some pvp players confirmed that they don't want to have + enjoy an authentic military game and gameplay in A3. Now they are trying hard to convince BIS + others that pvp is the "only" saviour for Arma franchise and all focus should be on public pvp gameplay.

I take it BI exists for the fulfillment of whatever fantasies you might have, and is not there to make a profit? Public PvP is the majority of PvP, or any kind of online activity, and that majority votes with their money.

P.S. Where the logic of whining on this subject, and then mentioning Public gameplay, as if you're only into private servers/communities? Some advice: upon release, mod your "private game", add the Tunguska, the Skud launchers, the BFGs, the 69th generation aircraft to one side, so you may "enjoy" your battle from the other.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[rocstar96 1]

I take it BI exists for the fulfillment of whatever fantasies you might have, and is not there to make a profit? Public PvP is the majority of PvP, or any kind of online activity, and that majority votes with their money.

P.S. Where the logic of whining on this subject, and then mentioning Public gameplay, as if you're balls deep into private servers? Then upon release, mod your "private game": add the Tunguska, the Skud launchers, the BFGs, the 69th generation aircraft to one side, so you may "enjoy" your battle from the other.

At least they ain't greedy as

.

[NoRailgunner 0]

DMarkwick maybe I should assume that you are an old fart who is just too old to see how public "competetive" gameplay is and how players do play/exploit/cheat? Or is it just that you are too blind to see that I already suggested something that players can choose right from the start how they like to play A3 - in simple words: a selection like MP - [PVP] or [Coop] and [sP] so one can [click] on it and have fun with balanced or unbalanced A3. Btw nothing trolly if you can make a point which is clear and not just fishy words like "possibility". ;) Btw on another thought: what about a "A3 - PvP only" DLC/expansion for a few bucks - just for the (public) pvp crowd?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

At least they ain't greedy as

.

Oh shit, caught before the edit. :icon_mrgreen:

BI are actually very generous with content and patches, but they're entering another league with the quality that they provided in ArmA III E3/GC demos, and public (hint: they're not on this forum for the most part) expectations are adjusting accordingly.

[celery 8]

Btw on another thought: what about a "A3 - PvP only" DLC/expansion for a few bucks - just for the (public) pvp crowd?

"Let's create a passworded server dedicated to catering to all the public players' needs! We'll PM the password if they just bother to ask."

[NoRailgunner 0]

Iroquois Pliskin are you sure that A3 should have in general the same or similar gameplay like most pvp shooters just for the sake of the masses? BIS need to make an unique military game not a "copy of popular 123" or "something like game XYZ" otherwise people will quickly notice that A3 isn't that awesome and perhaps not so much about adapt/survive/win either. I just hope that we will see some brandnew pvp missions/creations out of the A3 box so people can see and experience the difference between a popular (popcorn) shooter and Armaverse.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Why not, NoRailgunner? Is ArmA not an FPS? Is real life not twichy? Is ArmA not already twitchy, albeit with crap controls and animations?

Scale the concept a hundred times and you have multiple CQB engagements all over the urban areas of worth; logistics and mine-laying/barricading by an another team/player on major chokepoints; a tank battle over 2 km elsewhere; a small team helo sortie to enemy base/fortifications and 1200 m sniper engagement (killing AA pods or what have you) in another spot, to prepare way to CAS and aircraft strikes - all on the same map, on the same server!

The above already happens, though again, there's simply not enough players on the servers in the long term, because of the issues that had been mentioned many times before.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

Thread conclusion: some pvp players confirmed that they don't want to have + enjoy an authentic military game and gameplay in A3.

ARMA 3 stopped being authentic the moment BI revealed the "revived" (or never canceled) Comanche and set the campaign in 2035. ;)

otherwise people will quickly notice that A3 isn't that awesome

I think that that's all that has to be said, really. See, I don't know if English is your first language, but "notice" tends to imply something negative about the subject that people are finally seeing the truth... your phrase seems to imply that if BI acts like ARMA 3 can't be compared to other shooters, people will find it harder to notice ARMA 3's flaws. :D

Iroquois Pliskin are you sure that A3 should have in general the same or similar gameplay like most pvp shooters just for the sake of the masses?

I will answer this for Iroquois: YES, and one thing I like about the ARMA 3 dev team and Celery in particular is that they seem to aim ARMA 3 at just that.

[dmarkwick 261]

DMarkwick maybe I should assume that you are an old fart who is just too old to see how public "competetive" gameplay is and how players do play/exploit/cheat? Or is it just that you are too blind to see that I already suggested something that players can choose right from the start how they like to play A3 - in simple words: a selection like MP - [PVP] or [Coop] and [sP] so one can [click] on it and have fun with balanced or unbalanced A3. Btw nothing trolly if you can make a point which is clear and not just fishy words like "possibility". ;) Btw on another thought: what about a "A3 - PvP only" DLC/expansion for a few bucks - just for the (public) pvp crowd?

Hmm. Your reply, and indeed other replies before this, kind of make me think you don't really use the editor? Because you're displaying an almost glowing refusal to see what nearly everyone else can see, that what you put in the editor, are the only things you will see in the mission. You've made it sound like this:

"Whatever mission you choose, you can make a further choice to have it balanced or not".

A mission will not be balanced because you made a click, it will be balanced because of what you put into the mission. Anything you decide to leave out, will not magically jump in. I believe what most people on this thread are happy to see will be: the possibility of balanced missions, not the insistence of balanced missions.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I said that its up to the mission maker and his knowledge to create great missions. Just because some pvp players don't like to deal with different assets doesn't mean they are right. Its imho more about how to get new people familiar with A3 and its universe instead of doing just a simple "repaint" of certain/all stuff. Would be silly if people find out that there is no real or only insignificant difference between the A3 factions and their own assets....

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Sorry, bro. I've tried to mentor people on how to avoid the Tunguska for months, many were successful, but still more gave up.

Change the TAB+Click=Boom mechanics, and you might have a case, until then - nope.