Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[chortles 263]

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....

... you managed to completely ignore what DMarkwick said, and somehow I don't think that "English as a Second Language" is the reason... I mean, you're not even the one dictating what "A3 and its universe" even means.

P.S. I believe that Iroquois Pliskin meant "we wouldn't need balance if guided-weapons targeting were more realistic than pressing Tab".

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

P.S. I believe that Iroquois Pliskin meant "we wouldn't need balance if guided-weapons targeting were more realistic than pressing Tab".

A lot of people were making that point: there are counter-measures to every system. We have Tunguska with TAB+Click? Counter: flares (or maybe even jamming equipment) and supersonic speeds for jets. Supersonic speeds? Bigger islands. Bigger islands? More work to populate said islands, etc, etc.

It isn't feasible, thus Tunguska would be a problem under the current system.

[chortles 263]

Who says the Iranians of Armaversum 2035 haven't already decommissioned that thing in favor of something newer and sexier? :D

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Who says the Iranians of Armaversum 2035 haven't already decommissioned that thing in favor of something newer and sexier? :D

Oh shit, you mean 8 autocannons and missiles covering a radius of 50 km? :eek:

[chortles 263]

More like "they may have gotten their hands on the S-300 or S-400 systems in the Armaversum timeline"...

[[frl]myke 14]

Hmm...i often see the Tunguska mentioned as "Superweapon" so i was curious: me in AH-64/AH-1/A-10 as Pilot (on the choppers) vs. 6 Tunguskas.

Result: with choppers all taken down without taking a single hit (although there were a lot of missiles heading my way, all hiting the mountain i was hidden behind it). With the A-10, taken out 2 (Mavericks) and damaged 2 with GAU-8 (crew disembarked), then shot down. I guess with 2 A-10 it is possible to defeat 6 Tunguskas.

Ok, i admit i tested with my Real Airweapons Addon which makes missiles more realistic regarding speed and range (slower than vanilla but much higher range).

That said: to make it "balanced", make it realistic. :D

[jumpartist 0]

jeesh, are we still having this conversation? We cant even comment on what A3 PvP will be like until it hits. And even if its not what you want (from either side of the house) you can MAKE YOUR OWN!!! Make insurgency, make a conventional war, make a zombie war.

Im pretty sure we all want BIS to make the vehicles more realistic (no tab fire boom). So really this thread has ran its course......about five times over.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Myke;2221964']Hmm...i often see the Tunguska mentioned as "Superweapon" so i was curious: me in AH-64/AH-1/A-10 as Pilot (on the choppers) vs. 6 Tunguskas.

Result: with choppers all taken down without taking a single hit (although there were a lot of missiles heading my way' date=' all hiting the mountain i was hidden behind it). With the A-10, taken out 2 (Mavericks) and damaged 2 with GAU-8 (crew disembarked), then shot down. I guess with 2 A-10 it is possible to defeat 6 Tunguskas.

Ok, i admit i tested with my Real Airweapons Addon which makes missiles more [b']realistic[/b] regarding speed and range (slower than vanilla but much higher range).

That said: to make it "balanced", make it realistic. :D

In PvP, you might stand a chance in a helo against a Tung on Takistan with lurking behind hills, but the second a jet leaves the runway on either map, it's TAB+click with superior radar, missile velocity and missile range of the Tung.

One Tung can shutdown all Blufor aircraft, if the player knows the hell he's doing, he will wait with engine off and then TAB+click you.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

jeesh, are we still having this conversation?

Pretty much, I think it lay fallow after a while and then someone posted and it started happening all over again.

And even if its not what you want (from either side of the house) you can MAKE YOUR OWN!!!

Sorry dude, this misses the point: as with other "how should ARMA be" threads, this is talking about how VANILLA ARMA 3 should be, even if in in the case of this thread it's just "assets in the Editor" (not that NoRailgunner will admit that).

[[frl]myke 14]

In PvP, you might stand a chance in a helo against a Tung on Takistan with lurking behind hills, but the second a jet leaves the runway on either map, it's TAB+click with superior radar, missile velocity and missile range of the Tung.

One Tung can shutdown all Blufor aircraft, if the player knows the hell he's doing, he will wait with engine off and then TAB+click you.

Was curios so did another test. F-35 vs. 2 Tunguskas. Goal: not to be hit as long as possible. I didn't fired a single shot on them. Again my Real Airweapons addon was active (thus the missile speed was realistic).

Result: Tunguskas ran out of missiles before i ran out of countermeasures. They were on a hilltop on Takistan, i've always kept a good line of fire for them. Drop countermeasure and outmaneuver missiles. Meanwhile a Inf squad could have found a position to lase the targets and i could have used my GBU-12 to kill the Tunguskas, if this were in MP.

So just make it realistic as it will balance itself.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Myke;2222012']Was curios so did another test. F-35 vs. 2 Tunguskas. Goal: not to be hit as long as possible. I didn't fired a single shot on them. Again my Real Airweapons addon was active (thus the missile speed was realistic).

Result: Tunguskas ran out of missiles before i ran out of countermeasures. They were on a hilltop on Takistan' date=' i've always kept a good line of fire for them. Drop countermeasure and outmaneuver missiles.[/quote']

Cool story, brah. :D I do agree this is the way it should have been: transversal velocity to the maximum possible in orbit around the Tung with evasive maneuvers and good flare timing - you can't engage, but neither can you get shot down in such circumstances. But it isn't so in vanilla.

So just make it realistic as it will balance itself.

Should have, could have, would have. :) The fact is that it's been TAB+click=boom since vanilla ArmA II release, but sure, if you can "balance" missile velocity and jet speeds and counter-measure effectively to a range, where the hit rate is around 40-60%, and not 99%, under optimum conditions, then such systems have a right to life. But it wasn't done.

[[frl]myke 14]

Cool story, brah. :D I do agree this is the way it should have been: transversal velocity to the maximum possible in orbit around the Tung with evasive maneuvers and good flare timing - you can't engage, but neither can you get shot down in such circumstances. But it isn't so in vanilla.

Should have, could have, would have. :) The fact is that it's been TAB+click=boom since vanilla ArmA II release, but sure, if you can "balance" missile velocity and jet speeds and counter-measure effectively to a range, where the hit rate is around 40-60%, and not 99%, under optimum conditions, then such systems have a right to life. But it wasn't done.

Oh, i'm sorry, i thought we're speaking about how ArmA 3 should be balanced (or made realistic) and not about what was or wasn't done in ArmA 2. My bad. But i do see that the argument "make systems realistic and it will balance itself" wont fit into your chain of argumentation.

Either way, regarding the Tunguska, if a enemy Tunguska dominates your team, you aren't working together as a team. Pilots need ground troops and vice versa. Goes for Vanille aswell as for modded missiles.

[celery 8]

Myke;2222137']Either way' date=' regarding the Tunguska, if a enemy Tunguska dominates your team, you aren't working together as a team. Pilots need ground troops and vice versa.[/quote']

Or: if your team is the one with the Tunguska, you will dominate the other team unless they really work together to do something about it.

[[frl]myke 14]

Or: if your team is the one with the Tunguska, you will dominate the other team unless they really work together to do something about it.

really work together

And also if your team has the Tunguska, it is still vulnerable to a Inf team with AT weapons so it needs appropriate protection aswell or it will be very quickly gone. Know your assets and use them wisely.

Personally, if i'm pilot and know there is a Tunguska around, i would as ksome Inf group to lase it and drop a GBU-12 with highest possible engagement range which is quite far enough to avoid being hit by the Tunguska.

:EDITH:

Although not all, some of the arguments about balancing sounds like "make it so that i don't have to use my brain". As said, by far not all but often enough.

[celery 8]

Myke;2222221']Although not all' date=' some of the arguments about balancing sounds like "make it so that i don't have to use my brain". As said, by far not all but often enough.[/quote']

You have to understand that assumptions and expectations about a specific side's skills is basically a red herring to the whole balance discussion, not to mention useless in itself. The side with an asset disadvantage doesn't automatically become more intelligent or skilled, and the opposing team doesn't suddenly become susceptible to some incredibly clever judo maneuver because of its asset advantage.

Since this is mainly a discussion about assets that enable both sides to have a somewhat level playing field without convoluted missionside tricks, what are you trying to say by saying that one team should use teamwork to destroy something that enables the other team to dominate them with much less teamwork than you expect from the disadvantaged team?

Myke;2222221']And also if your team has the Tunguska' date=' it is still vulnerable to a Inf team with AT weapons so it needs appropriate protection aswell or it will be very quickly gone. Know your assets and use them wisely.[/quote']

Do you mean to say that the other side's much weaker AA vehicle doesn't need appropriate protection, and doesn't have to be used as wisely?

[[frl]myke 14]

Celery, you're a master of twisting words and your sig suits you perfectly. ;)

Let me quite myself:

Know your assets and use them wisely.

[celery 8]

Myke;2222233']Let me quite myself:

Assuming that both sides know their assets and use them wisely, do you think that both of them are as likely to win regardless of how much of a quality advantage the other has?

[hellfire257 3]

I still don't understand this discussion. If 1 vehicle is superior to the opponents counterpart, then why not just limit the availability or provide the opponent with an advantage in another area, for example, armour?

[celery 8]

I still don't understand this discussion. If 1 vehicle is superior to the opponents counterpart, then why not just limit the availability or provide the opponent with an advantage in another area, for example, armour?

Let's say you want to make a respawn-enabled pvp mission for 20 players total that ideally has two cars, one tank and one plane per side. How would you make it fair for both sides without saturating at least one side with vehicles and making infantry a minority?

The assets are listed here:

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

[[frl]myke 14]

Assuming that both sides know their assets and use them wisely, do you think that both of them are as likely to win regardless of how much of a quality advantage the other has?

...which assumes that wisdom and skills is absolutely equal on both sides, which is simply impossible. I had several occasions where i was on a team with by far inferior equipment compared to our opponents, yet we still managed to win. Sometimes our opponents won but all in all it was...guess what: balanced.

[hellfire257 3]

I would look for a location to give the weaker equipped side an advantage in terrain so they can use their assets to the best of their ability. I would also make their infantry level AT more numerous to counter the superior vehicle. However, I've never made such a mission so I bow to your more experienced judgement on this.

[dmarkwick 261]

I still don't understand this discussion. If 1 vehicle is superior to the opponents counterpart, then why not just limit the availability or provide the opponent with an advantage in another area, for example, armour?

The discussion really isn't (or shouldn't be) about mission design, it's about the possibility of choosing balanced assets if the mission needs them. Like in a balanced PvP for example. No-one's suggesting that all assets must have a counter-asset the same strength etc, only that there are some.

(NOT @ Hellfire..) The way some people are reacting it's like they believe ArmA should be the ultimate freeform sandbox - except for the possibility of a balanced match.

[hellfire257 3]

So basically different, toggle-able configs for assets that make them balanced?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Myke;2222137']Oh' date=' i'm sorry, i thought we're speaking about how ArmA [b']3[/b] should be balanced (or made realistic) and not about what was or wasn't done in ArmA 2. My bad. But i do see that the argument "make systems realistic and it will balance itself" wont fit into your chain of argumentation.

Myke, lay off the plants. :P We're discussing how it currently is, and there's precedent and danger, that such "realism" will make its way into ArmA III - I will not stand for that, so I have to baby sit people here, explaining rather obvious concepts.

Either way, regarding the Tunguska, if a enemy Tunguska dominates your team, you aren't working together as a team. Pilots need ground troops and vice versa. Goes for Vanille aswell as for modded missiles.

I can tell, that you haven't played a single PvP mission involving a Tunguska. Good luck catching a Tung on foot, or even finding it when it sits with engine off in some bush. Unlike grounds targets, aircraft are fish in a barrel: the skies are clear, birds and other UFOs don't show up on Tung's radar, your jet DOES, thus TAB+click.

[dmarkwick 261]

So basically different, toggle-able configs for assets that make them balanced?

No, just a selection of assets available for both sides, not absolutely balanced or anything ridiculous, just... comparable.