Balancing?

[metalcraze 290]

If weapons were balanced it would still allow for asymetrical warfare by the mission maker restricting weapons, scopes, vehicles etc.

Yes because asymmetrical warfare is about some side having tanks or RPGs cut out and not about different sides having different ways of fighting the war due to the gap in technological level and/or manpower.

...and you could still have the completely balanced BF3 style conquer the island or capture bases (on a much larger scale of course)

So you are one of those guys who think that Battlefield 3 is a benchmark for ArmA? That explains.

Don't want to learn no tactics, just want to pop a dude who has the exact same weapon as me. That's soooo incredibly fun.

I mean those people running in dirty rags with AKs without any cool ACOGs giving US a hard time for a decade - what do they know?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[Smurf 12]

+1 for no artificial balancing.

Now that BluFor is no more BestFor, you could give some strong and weak points for each faction and people will have to deal with it. Arma isn't and should never be an e-sport thing.

Life is hard, war is hell; Deal with it. :cool:

[EDcase 87]

No. I have nothing against certain popular mission types, but going down that rabbit-hole to suit one sector of the player base is a fundamentally bad idea. Balance is something that should be left to the mission-maker.

Actually the sniper thing is a separate argument from this thread really.

My gripe with snipers is that they will become too dominant in ANY mission. (wind would help that situation)

[KingChubbles 1]

There is also enough choice that the mission maker can choose to balance the mission while using unbalanced weapons. Since arma has always seemed to lean more towards a realistic representation of weapons and equipment I don't see why it should stop now.

No two rifles are equal in every way, there are differences. These differences should not be changed in order to balance this sandbox game.

[dmarkwick 261]

Good post Alwarren:

But referring to your example of the tanks. In ARMA there are so many vehicles and weapons that even if you had 'matched' tanks the mission maker could still but a heavy MBT on one side and smaller, faster vehicles on the other...

If weapons were balanced it would still allow for asymetrical warfare by the mission maker restricting weapons, scopes, vehicles etc.

...and you could still have the completely balanced BF3 style conquer the island or capture bases (on a much larger scale of course)

That would give ARMA3 the FULL sandbox scope.

This point has been made often, always falls on deaf ears :)

The missionmaker decides on mission balance. It's not like equipments can jump right out of the editor into any game :) I guess the devs would like the possibility of a balanced gameplay out-of-the-box, which is different to insisting that every game is balanced.

But in any case, either the game assets will be balanced or not. Either way, one group or another will rely on mods to "correct" it for them. As long as it can be corrected, of course. It's always been the case that just about everything than can be tweaked for realism, is. I know people here have made the point that they want the game to be their way out-of-the-box, but that will never happen in any case, there will ALWAYS be something. But really it's down to the design the devs are following.

[EDcase 87]

Yeah DMarkwick, its in BiS hands...

Balancing summary:

If you have lots of assets (weapons, vehicles etc) on each side then the greatest possiblities arrise if they are roughly balanced.

That way you can create asymetrical scenarios by selecting different equipment for both sides

...and you can have balanced warfare AS WELL

If you force all assets to be different then it restricts the possibilities that can be made.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[KingChubbles 1]

But if you have unbalanced weapons then the mission maker could create a balanced mission equally as well. This being a sandbox representing real life equipment, the real life equipment needs to be accurately represented.

[EDcase 87]

But if you have unbalanced weapons then the mission maker could create a balanced mission equally as well.

No they can't

You haven't made many missions have you...

[bad benson 1733]

i agree that balance for PvP has to be done on the mission level. there are already missions that do that by limiting scopes in general a lot. lowering fire rates on rifles for balance is just silly. at least use recoil or scope sway. i'm not actually concerned about realism. it's just the wrong approach to do it like that.

there are just too many missions using VAS (no disrespect to the makers). not only will people take ages to fullfill their gear fetish you will also end up not only with lots of solo sniper campers but also will not have the proper equipment to do the job (especially in coop) because no one will bother to pick a load out that helps his team.

while in coop and genral arma the freedom of choice is great, i think it should be strictly limited in PvP, if you want a good experience. arma's terrains are just too big. there will be always an unproportional amount of sniping as opposed to objective based team coordinated infantry combat if things are just kept totally open.

the best example is dayZ. if sniper rifles (and even high caliber ones) are too available and in general the goal becomes to rack up kills, people will mostly camp and snipe because it's the most effective tactic. who can blame them?

[KingChubbles 1]

No they can't

You haven't made many missions have you...

Perhaps not equally as well, however it is possible.

And I have made some missions but my focus was never on balancing.

[Rolling 1]

When I first saw the resistance with their own modern guns, and full uniforms I was immediatly worried :P

I'd think that they should be using either outdated, or scavenged equipment from the other armies.

[EDcase 87]

Any mission that allows snipers to "dominate" is poorly designed and not worth playing.

This is true but snipers should not be all powerfull killing machines anyway.

Well said Bad Benson

When I first saw the resistance with their own modern guns, and full uniforms I was immediatly worried :P

I'd think that they should be using either outdated, or scavenged equipment from the other armies.

Wrong

The mission maker can give them inferior weapons if they wish.

What about a 'Capture the Island' mission with 4 teams...?!?!?

That would be great and unique but NOT possible if they are forced to be unbalanced.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[EDcase 87]

Wow. Maybe we aren't on the same page after all.

It is absolutely possible to create a balanced mission using unbalanced/assymetrical assets. That's the entire point. Balance does not come from weapon stats, it comes from mission design. Nerfing/buffing assets to influence gameplay is cheap and lazy.

What I meant is that if sides are nerfed you can't make a mission with all sides the same like 'King of the Hill', 'Capture the Island' or 'Warfare' style games where teams HAVE to be balanced.

[Varanon 892]

My gripe with snipers is that they will become too dominant in ANY mission. (wind would help that situation)

What do you mean with the word "mission" ?

Any mission designer can determine the amount of assets available. If you want to prevent everyone from being a sniper, just don't include sniper rifles in your mission (or just one or two).

[EDcase 87]

What do you mean with the word "mission" ?

Any mission designer can determine the amount of assets available. If you want to prevent everyone from being a sniper, just don't include sniper rifles in your mission (or just one or two).

Any mission which has a sniper slot or sniper weapon...

With the range and power of these anti-material rifles they could be so far away as to be undetectable thereby becoming unstoppable.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[KingChubbles 1]

Any mission which has a sniper slot or sniper weapon...

The point of a sniper rifle is to be able to engage targets at long range. It is those targets job to find good cover, pinpoint where the fire is coming from, and counter attack. If there is no cover around then its the fault of the targets for not planning a different rout.

[Varanon 892]

Any mission which has a sniper slot or sniper weapon...

With the range and power of these anti-material rifles they could be so far away as to be undetectable thereby becoming unstoppable.

Well, in this case, no balancing will stop this from happening short of removing the sniper rifles altogether.

However, these things have been in Arma 2 as well, and it didn't stop TvT either, did it ?

[bad benson 1733]

What I meant is that you can't make a balanced mission like 'King of the Hill', 'Capture the Island' or 'Warfare' style games where teams HAVE to be balanced

only if you have a set view of how those mission types have to be designed. there can always be a class system or a limit to how many snipers can be on one team. sure some people will cry because you limit their freedom. but it's as simple as that. either limit freedom in some ways or have no balance at all. another way for CTI type missions would be to just don't make certain weapons available in the mission, if they hurt the game play.

PvP mission makers just have to ignore the "the more guns the better" mentality.

i'm generally annoyed by the obsession with .50 cal sniper rifles. people just watch too many videos about super awesome weapon systems that generally don't talk much about their drawbacks.

i think there are other ways to balance a weapon, if you insist on doing it that way. dynamic dispersion to make only the first shot accurate, if you insist on "emptying your magazine in 2.2 seconds". and as i said. recoil in general. A LOT of scope sway in all positions except prone.

.50 cal weapons have a lot of recoil. not upwards like in arma but it's such a punch that there surely is an impact on accuracy when firing several shots in a very short period time.

there have to be more problems grouping your shots on a small target over large distances. i've yet to see one of those proof videos where a real sniper puts all his bullets in one or several targets in a matter of seconds. usually they rest for a short bit because they have to reacquire the target anyways. and probably becasue the punch and sound simply hurt you ;)

in general "super weapons" like these should be modeled more realistically. you can't just use them like any other rifle from the crouch position. these big rifles need to be highly limited in a lot of ways. fire rate is not one of them.

watch this and tell me that the time you can empty the mag of that rifle has any real meaning in a combat situation.

[Varanon 892]

i'm generally annoyed by the obsession with .50 cal sniper rifles. people just watch too many videos about super awesome weapon systems that generally don't talk much about their drawbacks.

Indeed.

watch this and tell me that the time you can empty the mag of that rifle has any real meaning in a combat situation.

I would guess that most people (me at least) are not worried about the reload time of the rifle, but rather about the fact that it was modified for "balancing" reasons.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

Limited ammunition. Limited view distance. Terrain in the AO. Plenty of options.

My post was hypothetical. *IF* sniper rifles became unstoppable, *THEN* the only option would be to remove them. I know they aren't.

[benjamin1 10]

When I first saw the resistance with their own modern guns, and full uniforms I was immediatly worried :P

I'd think that they should be using either outdated, or scavenged equipment from the other armies.

Thats were i got worried too, but this green army is (one) army on the independent side, it may or not be just a more powerful faction among others of the independent affiliate. if you look at the livestream you see they have regular gloves which may tell something about their inventory. Also since Blueforce and Opforce share the same quality of equipment, i'm sure we will see some contrasts in the other factions.

[byku 13]

On the other hand guys, imagine pvp mission, or conquest mission with three factions. Anyway, devs said that we will get more that 3 factions. So we might get a fourth highly underpowered faction.

[EvenLease 11]

There should be no such thing as 'balancing'. The weapons need to be as powerful and as hard to shoot as in real life.

Not just making things even for each side because, oh that's fair... that would be BS and horrendous.

[bad benson 1733]

I would guess that most people (me at least) are not worried about the reload time of the rifle, but rather about the fact that it was modified for "balancing" reasons.

i realize that. the problem appears when you dismiss balancing overall and don't mention that the .50 cal rifles are far from realistic at their current stage. i assume that most people might realize that it's the case. i'm just trying to get the discussion to a constructive point where it's not "balancing vs realism" but rather "what exacty is wrong with the game, why do some weapons even feel unbalanced in the first place".

the point that balance is bad and realism is good becomes invalid if the discussion only revovles around reload time or the two concepts in general. while i agree that the mission level can provide balance i also think that there are other unused methods that don't contradict realism but rather enforce it more in terms of these big rifles.

i'd rather not have these types of weapons in the game if they just feel like normal rifles with high damage. doing nothing about it is equally as unrealistic as lowering fire rate to an unrealistic value.

[Alwarren 2767]

Any mission which has a sniper slot or sniper weapon...

With the range and power of these anti-material rifles they could be so far away as to be undetectable thereby becoming unstoppable.

As has been said before, the easiest way to do that is introduce wind into Arma 3. If that guy still snipes you from 1.5 kilometers away, then he effing deserved the kill, because it becomes a matter of skill to engage at range.

[metalcraze 290]

it's down to the design the devs are following.

And what is that design now?

With not the exactly best team for the job (PMC DLC) being in charge of ArmA3 the design has clearly shifted from OFP's "Here are challenges. Deal with them. If you can't - well this isn't a game for you. Not all shooters should be carbon copies of each other, it's called different genre" to "Oh no! New players are complaining that some feature prevents them from having "fun" like in Battlefield 3! Guess we'll have to cut it out!".

People whined that weapons had weight? Cut it out.

People whined that they couldn't strafe through a doorway with a long MG in a CQB? Make it clip through a doorway.

People whined that they are getting fatigued after running for 2 kilometers with a gear and have to slow down and walk for a bit? Replace with a harmless vignette effect.

People whined that they have to use different tactics as different sides? Make sides mirror each other

People whined about having to deal with recoil? Promise them to "fix" it

People ask for windage/deployable stocks/better chopper flight model? Pfft! "it will happen sometime after release... probably".

It's like the mentality of the new team is that ArmA3 should indeed be a slightly more complicated Battlefield 3 and not ArmA. Authenticity mantra of Jay Crowe is not convincing enough.

And mind you OFP came out at a time where the norm for a shooter was a soldier with an iron skin soaking bullets, bunny hopping around like mad while spamming missiles and stepping on a medkit to restore all health. Meaning it was the exact opposite of what was mainstream. And yet with 2 mln copies sold it didn't end up being an obscure game, too hard for carebears.

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze