Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[celery 8]

Depends on the objective.

Using the terrain or by giving the team with the so called better tanks a higher number of players on their team. That's assuming players are interested in working together and playing it smart, however I'm told assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

The benefits of terrain are hardly quantifiable, and you can't control how many players join which side. If two sides' assets are "in balance" only when considering the whole spectrum, you can't just tell mission designers to create the balance themselves in a mission that isn't a huge sandbox with all the toys at hand. Respawn-enabled pvp in Arma 2 is balanced only if it's infantry-only or doesn't utilize anything beyond light vehicles.

[Mirudes 1]

The benefits of terrain are hardly quantifiable, and you can't control how many players join which side. If two sides' assets are "in balance" only when considering the whole spectrum, you can't just tell mission designers to create the balance themselves in a mission that isn't a huge sandbox with all the toys at hand. Respawn-enabled pvp in Arma 2 is balanced only if it's infantry-only or doesn't utilize anything beyond light vehicles.

This is not quite correct though.

In the ArmA2 mission 'Insurgency' the balance of power is checked in the game. It is possible to kick players automatically when one side has become disproportionately strong.

This should be a proposal for a basic function in ArmA3:

A setting that (with an adjustable tolerance in percent) prescribes to have equal numbers of players on all sides.

[celery 8]

This is not quite correct though.

In the ArmA2 mission 'Insurgency' the balance of power is checked in the game. It is possible to kick players automatically when one side has become disproportionately strong.

This should be a proposal for a basic function in ArmA3:

A setting that (with an adjustable tolerance in percent) prescribes to have equal numbers of players on all sides.

An automatic player number balancing system is a can of worms of its own even if you don't count the effort of implementing it to specific missions with a specific player ratio that has to be tried and tested. Is Abrams vs. T-90 fair? What about 2 T-90s? What about 3? What happens to the balance when the west side gets a second player?

Do you see already how an imbalanced selection of asset counterparts makes mission balancing difficult? It's easy to say "just choose a suitable terrain or script a player kicking script so it's balanced", but it's far from easily implemented, especially if you try to maintain any kind of fidelity to the original concept you had for the mission.

[Mirudes 1]

Do you need suggestions or do you want some cheese to your wine? :rolleyes:

I wonder who even needs a total balanced game? Me not! The PvP-players?

As before said, they can create a modification for this purpose.

PvP can play a return match.

Another suggestion: Each side uses the same equipment, only the camouflage is different.

Another suggestion: Use randomness.

If the developers will make it balanced, neither of us will be satisfied.

[Alistair 10]

War isn't balanced.

Remember fighting Abrams with t 55's?

That was fun,and required teamwork.

We don't need another rock,paper,scissors game.Its great as it is,we just need improvements.

[chortles 263]

Remember fighting Abrams with t 55's?

... yeah, that's why they went "2035 with high-tech OPFOR" with Moricky last year specifically talking up OPFOR being more like NATO in tech level.

[keefehb 0]

... yeah, that's why they went "2035 with high-tech OPFOR" with Moricky last year specifically talking up OPFOR being more like NATO in tech level.

It can be NATO tech level without being the copy and paste it is now though.

[chortles 263]

The extreme I was responding to wasn't the kind of "imbalance" that you're thinking of.

[celery 8]

I wonder who even needs a roughly balanced mix of assets for both sides? Me not! The PvP-players?

You apparently not. Pvp players yes. Is that a problem to you?

As before said, they can create a modification for this purpose.

Therein lies the problem. Such modifications have indeed been made for Arma 2 so that comparatively whine-free large-scale pvp campaigns could be played. Can you guess why those mods aren't used in public games?

PvP can play a return match.

There is no such thing as a return match in public games, and even in organized matches a source of imbalance can become the decisive focal point of the game, which isn't preferable. It's also impractical if the players are supposed to always play for the same side or the matches are very long.

Another suggestion: Each side uses the same equipment, only the camouflage is different.

And that's so easy without modding the game, isn't it? Also, mirroring assets is a lazy way to a boring outcome.

Another suggestion: Use randomness.

Worst balancing suggestion ever.

If the developers will make it balanced, neither of us will be satisfied.

Oh really? If the asset counterparts were of roughly comparable capabilities, would you really go about making your asymmetric scenario by giving each side an equal number of the same type of vehicle and weapon? What happened to balance through mission design and mods? How about adding some randomness?

I find it amusing that all these really clever balancing suggestions (just like in the previous pages of thread) come from people who have never had to deal with such problems, much less make a balanced pvp mission, i.e. a mission where either side has a more or less equal chance at victory assuming equal player numbers and skill. Is the word balance really so much of a swear word that there can be no situations where it might be good and desirable?

[EuroSlave 1]

Insurgency in ARMA 2 was great

Getting the balance right IMO was all up to the players. For instance - all going blufor means the mission becomes too easy and boring. A few people going insurgents really spiced it up. Too many going insurgents and then the game became too stacked to opfor.

At this point with ARMA 3 the only reason I choose the green faction over any other faction is simply the look of the soldiers - blufor,opfor and green guns all feel exactly the same to me. I can't tell the difference. This I don't like.

[progamer 14]

You apparently not. Pvp players yes. Is that a problem to you?

Therein lies the problem. Such modifications have indeed been made for Arma 2 so that comparatively whine-free large-scale pvp campaigns could be played. Can you guess why those mods aren't used in public games?

There is no such thing as a return match in public games, and even in organized matches a source of imbalance can become the decisive focal point of the game, which isn't preferable. It's also impractical if the players are supposed to always play for the same side or the matches are very long.

And that's so easy without modding the game, isn't it? Also, mirroring assets is a lazy way to a boring outcome.

Worst balancing suggestion ever.

Oh really? If the asset counterparts were of roughly comparable capabilities, would you really go about making your asymmetric scenario by giving each side an equal number of the same type of vehicle and weapon? What happened to balance through mission design and mods? How about adding some randomness?

I find it amusing that all these really clever balancing suggestions (just like in the previous pages of thread) come from people who have never had to deal with such problems, much less make a balanced pvp mission, i.e. a mission where either side has a more or less equal chance at victory assuming equal player numbers and skill. Is the word balance really so much of a swear word that there can be no situations where it might be good and desirable?

Why do you want things to be balanced? Kju makes the pvp balanced mod that people who want balance go play. Arma is set were NATO likely has the lesser tech than opfor this time around, after all they did get pushed back to Greece.

---------- Post added at 01:25 ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 ----------

Also, you forget to take into account steam intergration allowing easy mod step which would promote more players playing mods,

---------- Post added at 01:26 ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 ----------

Balance is done by the mission designer and soley by him/her.

[chortles 263]

Also, you forget to take into account steam intergration allowing easy mod step which would promote more players playing mods,

Not true, it's been made clear multiple times that Steam Workshop integration is only confirmed for missions, and mods is up-in-the-air/uncertain.

Balance is done by the mission designer and soley by him/her.

I remember you starting a thread where you thought that the devs disagreed...

[celery 8]

Why do you want roughly balanced asset counterparts for both main sides?

So that it wouldn't be ridiculously complicated to make non-asymmetric missions of a preferred size and scope where one side isn't more likely to win.

Arma is set were NATO likely has the lesser tech than opfor this time around, after all they did get pushed back to Greece.

The way things look right now, asset balance in Arma 3 is going to be way better than in Arma 1 and 2.

Also, you forget to take into account steam intergration allowing easy mod step which would promote more players playing mods

I think you're losing focus of what we're discussing here.

Balance is done by the mission designer and soley by him/her.

Why don't you actually provide substance for that empty phrase of yours by teaching us how to balance the tank pvp mission I was talking about earlier? I trust you won't give the same suggestions as the previous people since you obviously know what you're talking about.

[keefehb 0]

Celery my reply was shit, I accept that lol.

Making a balanced tank vs tank mission with respawn enabled on chernarus would be very difficult using current Arma 2 units. I still think terrain can play a part however and it also depends on what the missions objectives are? Are we literally talking just 2 teams of tanks shooting each other? Or has one team to capture an objective.. All that has to matter.

[Mirudes 1]

I wonder who even needs a roughly balanced mix of assets for both sides? Me not! The PvP-players?

Why do you want roughly balanced asset counterparts for both main sides?[/

Do you want to reply now to your own misquotes?

I think you're losing focus of what we're discussing here.

Dude, go and see a doctor! There is something wrong with you!

[celery 8]

Do you want to reply now to your own misquotes?

If you didn't get it already, I edited the quotes (in bold no less to make it clear and over the board) in order to make absolutely certain you realize what anyone wanting balance in the Arma series actually means by the word 'balance'. This massive thread goes in circles and every time somebody argues against balance, they think it means mirrored assets and missions and no ability whatsoever to create and enjoy asymmetrical scenarios. Your "I wonder who even needs a total balanced game?" is obvious straw man rhetoric where you put words in other people's mouths, which makes your whining all the more ironic.

Dude, go and see a doctor! There is something wrong with you!

Judging by your past and ongoing performance in this thread, you seem to warrant that remark much more yourself.

[Deadfast 43]

Dude, go and see a doctor! There is something wrong with you!

Judging by your past and ongoing performance in this thread, you seem to warrant that remark much more yourself.

Gentlemen, let's keep the discussion civil, please.

[xyberviri 1]

Does it really matter what side has what? mission designers add VAB and that lets you pick and choose what weapons you want to use, it doesn't matter what side they are from..

Almost no one plays any of the missions where you are forced to use a predefined load out and most of them are now giving you the choice of what to load out with. Mission designers would be stupid to do those types of missions if they want the random population to join their server.

Then you add in the fact that some people insist on being snipers but have almost no aim what so ever, you have the guy that only brings c4, that one guy that only wants to carry rockets and pistol ammo.

The only way any game would ever be balanced is if everyone was forced into the same unit with the same loadout, on the same hardware, on a lan(and everyone was a clone of the same person).

[metalcraze 290]

Let's say you want to make a respawn-enabled tank-only pvp mission in Arma 2. How would you make it balanced?

If you want a respawn-enabled tank-only pvp mission why not go and play a game that is more suited for balanced respawn-enabled tank-only pvp mission (like BF3 which has a DLC exactly with that in mind) instead of forcing it on ArmA3 and ruining it?

ArmA was never about providing balance exclusively for pvp respawn gameplay at the expense of all others. So why should it be like that now?

There is no such thing as a return match in public games, and even in organized matches a source of imbalance can become the decisive focal point of the game, which isn't preferable. It's also impractical if the players are supposed to always play for the same side or the matches are very long.

I once played a PvP game in ArmA2 where one side had to defend an objective from enemies that had to destroy it with explosives.

It was almost pitch black night. Defending side had no NVGs. Attacking side did have NVGs.

Can you guess who lost the game? I can give you a hint

Now how could this have happened if the game was so unbalanced? Maybe just pointing a gun at the enemy and shooting isn't all there's to PvP?

You are welcome.

There's also that niche game L4D where pvp is 4:4 but one side has a whole horde of zombies and infinite respawn on their side and the other side are 4 humans that only have guns and if they die they die. Gee how anyone can play that? That's extremely unfair to survivors. Bet it doesn't even have public pvp

Edited July 8, 2013 by metalcraze

[ric 1]

this is a war simulation ....if there was ""balance"" it would end in a boring repetitive stalemate. improvise,adapt ,over come...you adapt your tactics to the situation at hand. Do you think that all the technological advances that have happened in warfare were because some one said...hey...lets try this...no, most of it was born of necessity.

the famous tiger tank is a prime example...it was born because they needed to counter the T34.....because the battlefield had become unbalanced in terms of tank warfare. balanced is boring in terms of this game...innovative and ingenious tactics to counter a superior adversary make it more fun :) ...like the Germans had to do before the arrival of the tiger :)

[TSAndrey 1]

There's also that niche game L4D where pvp is 4:4 but one side has a whole horde of zombies and infinite respawn on their side and the other side are 4 humans that only have guns and if they die they die. Gee how anyone can play that? That's extremely unfair to survivors. Bet it doesn't even have public pvp

No, it's not. The infected have to try pretty hard to beat the survivors, and survivors can kill the infected most of the time by just sticking together. Infact, I think the infected are at a serious disadvantage because the infected controls are pretty stupid and hard.