Balancing?

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I'd think that they should be using either outdated, or scavenged equipment from the other armies.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

[blu3sman 11]

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

How about situations when you use such rifle in a way it was designed for (hint: anti-material).

For example to disable moving vehicle or helicopter from medium distance, having only several seconds window.

Not that I am too anal about fire rate. Point is, in game we have two different rifles designed for different purposes. And somehow they are treated like identical "generic .50 cal".

[Alwarren 2767]

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".

I can immediately come up with two points that I think need fixing:

1) Wind. As I said it my previous post, introduction of wind as a factor will make long-range combat a matter of skill. It will no longer be enough to just lie somewhere and wait for someone to run in front of your scope. Wind, especially changing wind, gusts of wind, and any such factor, make sniping difficult, and will reduce the number of sniper-campers since it no longer is just a matter of zeroring and squeezing the trigger.

2) Weapon size. In reality, why would someone pick, say, a P90 or a G36C over an M16 or any other full-length rifle? Because handling a short weapon is much easier than a long rifle. Handling of short weapons in close combat situation is much better than long weapons, and if that were reflected in game, it would place a sniper (especially one with a 50cal) at a considerate disadvantage. On longer ranges, obviously, the disadvantage disappears and the longer weapons, because of their better accuracy and range, will gain the upper hand.

These two aspects are poorly or not at all represented in most games I know.

[EDcase 87]

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.

Yes, I hope BiS adds wind and makes the whole sniper experience more realistic.

[ak1287 1]

I wish we had all gotten in on this game in the development stage.

Edit: This is a facetious comment, not meant to be taken seriously or interpreted in any way, shape or form. Except for Metalcraze, in which case it's telling you to buy everyone on these forums cookies.

[TSAndrey 1]

Just because it's a military simulator, doesn't mean it doesn't need balance. For example, the pistol in Arma 3 is pretty weak right now. It takes more than 5 shoots to kill someone even if he is close!

On the other hand, some things need to stay unfair, as that's how it works in real life. A jet will always be able to easily destroy an entire base, and there is almost nothing infantry can do. The point is to work as a team.

[byku 13]

2) Weapon size. In reality, why would someone pick, say, a P90 or a G36C over an M16 or any other full-length rifle? Because handling a short weapon is much easier than a long rifle. Handling of short weapons in close combat situation is much better than long weapons, and if that were reflected in game, it would place a sniper (especially one with a 50cal) at a considerate disadvantage. On longer ranges, obviously, the disadvantage disappears and the longer weapons, because of their better accuracy and range, will gain the upper hand.

With that I agree, if you agree also, please vote:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9181

[bad benson 1733]

How about situations when you use such rifle in a way it was designed for (hint: anti-material).

For example to disable moving vehicle or helicopter from medium distance, having only several seconds window.

Not that I am too anal about fire rate. Point is, in game we have two different rifles designed for different purposes. And somehow they are treated like identical "generic .50 cal".

you need to read my posts again.

i never said that reducing fire rate is a good thing. i also never treated .50 cal identical. i just talked about points that apply to each .50 cal rifle afaik. size, weight and recoil.

http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/570010d1344355882-sammelthread-dayz-arma-ii-modifikation-arma2oa-2012-08-07-18-10-33-70.png

if you see nothing wrong with that picture combined with the fact that you can constantly hold the rifle like this and the general handling of it, then you are neither for realism nor balancing. because both aren't considered in this case.

these rifles should be very hard to aim, if not in prone position. and ideally they should not be in the ready up position all the time. they should be lowered automatically so you have to get them up to shoot.

just observe the scope in this video. the way he shoots might be effective for very close range but that's it. not to mention the exhaustion shooting the rifle like this causes. he's not showing it a lot but you can see the weight when he lowers it. he's not a small guy. watch the impact the recoil has on his body.

[nodunit 397]

And what is that design now?

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

I'm not sure how that comes to dumbing down, Operation Flashpoint had for the most part equal footing between OPFOR and BLUFOR, Armed Assault had equal footing if we're talking platforms and not tech (since digital vs analogue means squat here) then Arma 2 had the US vs Russian Federation, and they were even more on par with one another.

Balance between blue and red only dropped in Operation Arrowhead, when the red force became a third world military with at best a T-72 and insurgents.

Edited June 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[chortles 263]

Funny that you posted that...

* [REMOVED] - M107 and AS50(Banned) from all loot tables and removed all damage from bullets so they do 0 damage even if spawned in.

Mind you, that's DayZ and not Arma, but... telling.

I'll agree re: weapon length, I'm actually wondering where the hell that went because I was almost expecting it to be in the alpha. The point Alwarren made by mentioning wind and weapon size is that "balance" does exist in real life... it's just that real-life balance occurs through certain factors (every weapon is situational) that right now Arma 3 doesn't simulate.

[metalcraze 290]

I'm not sure how that comes to dumbing down, Operation Flashpoint had for the most part equal footing between OPFOR and BLUFOR, Armed Assault had equal footing if we're talking platforms and not tech (since digital vs analogue means squat here) then Arma 2 had the US vs Russian Federation, and they were even more on par with one another.

Balance between blue and red only dropped in Operation Arrowhead, when the red force became a third world military with at best a T-72 and insurgents.

Those examples had equal footing but they weren't 1:1 copies

.

For example in ArmA2 russians didn't have as much NV tech available to them, let alone drones. Even loadouts and squad compositions were different. (13 vs. 10 with only commander having NVG for russians f.e. while at the same time russians had a lot more GL power than USMC squads) They also didn't have their clone of Javelin. At the same time russians had Mi24 which unlike Cobra could also transport troops apart from being a flying tank.

In ArmA3 every side seems to have exactly the same counterpart tech to the other side. Same squad composition. Same loadouts. Weapons seem to behave the same too.

Suddenly MX with an attached bipod and a bigger mag can only autofire for some reason. How's that not dumbing down for the sake of dull TDM balance?

BTW can anyone explain to me what's the point in MX carbine variant even existing in a game?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[liquidpinky 11]

Suddenly MX with an attached bipod and a bigger mag can only autofire for some reason. How's that not dumbing down for the sake of dull TDM balance?

Always been the case since day as far as I know and I use that weapon a lot. I do agree it is done for the sake of dumbassed dumbing down though.

Balance needs left for the kiddies games, which I partake in also BTW, kids aren't even allowed competitive sports days in case some little cherub learns the facts of life early and has a good QQ.

Arma needs to stay real, where life sometimes isn't fair, but persevering over it by tactics, team-play or just being better skilled than the OP weapon user reaps great satisfaction.

Or you can also sit and stew but know that you never really had a chance against the odds anyway.

Balance should only be through giving each side similar weapons, still with different characteristics as samey gear on both sides is boring as hell.

It is nice to learn each weapons ins and outs so you can play different styles to suit each instead of just picking up the opposite sides gun knowing it is the same as yours with just a different model and texture.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

as everyone else is having a say, here's my 2 pence.

Tweaking to fix weapons IMHO is fine and the correct approach. Balancing (as in BF3 terminology) is a foul and evil thing. The mod possibilities exist so that "balanced" PvP/TvT can me effected by the community at a later date.

We didnt need it in vanilla A2 so I dont see why its needed now TBH.

As to sniper rifles dominating. If they are dominating then they are being combated incorrectly or a lazy server is allowing EVERYONE to have them which is a bit daft.

Rgds

LoK

[chortles 263]

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.

My personal joke about what happened here was that the Greek government banged on BI's door about having a "Greek-FOR" and wouldn't take no for an answer. :lol:

**

And what is that design now?

With not the exactly best team for the job (PMC DLC) being in charge of ArmA3

This reminds me of what I remarked about when I asked you about the one-save-slot thing in the corresponding thread and you said that it gave you hope essentially in spite of the devs...

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.

You know, if your seeming main complaint re: the devs is that you don't trust them to essentially remake OFP (especially since there won't be a CWR3) and you're outright discounting the creative director's credibility, then what the hell is he supposed to say? Especially considering that some of the changes that we're seeing were alluded to for over a year now and that the alpha has his fingerprints all over it to the point that they might as well have just renamed the Arma 3 controls preset "The Jay Crowe Special" (to say nothing of what he told Gamespot about hand grenades) and especially when the game is currently getting so much more positive feedback outside of these forums because it's not like Arma 2...

In ArmA3 every side seems to have exactly the same counterpart tech to the other side. Same squad composition. Same loadouts. Weapons seem to behave the same too.

I'm actually going to disagree here: discounting the anti-materiel rifles, OPFOR alone has both a 7.62 x 51 mm DMR (whether that's simulated realistically is another story, of course) and a 200-round belt-fed LMG while BLUFOR has an accurized service rifle and a 100-round, magazine-fed light support weapon, an arrangement which actually reminds me of the XM8 family, and this is actually more asymmetrical than the initial alpha release when both sides had 7.62 mm DMRs (when the MXM and EBR both used the same twenty-round 7.62 x 45 mm magazines).

**

Always been the case since day as far as I know and I use that weapon a lot. I do agree it is done for the sake of dumbassed dumbing down though.

I would point out though that no vanilla weapon in this game has a working bipod, it's just cosmetic. :p

Balance should only be through giving each side similar weapons,

Too bad that even similar weapons is too much "balance" for some people :rolleyes: not accusing you of that, but I tend to consider the legendary "balance" of Starcraft something that Blizzard basically lucked into and then rode the coattails of for years...

**

Tweaking to fix weapons IMHO is fine and the correct approach. Balancing (as in BF3 terminology) is a foul and evil thing.

You mean "as in COD terminology"... and yeah, weapon tweaks are happening, that's more or less how this whole thread got started.

Mind you, I'd actually prefer for Raedek to explain what's meant by "balancing issues", since "by design different than in real life" and "working as intended" to me implies "no, the dev that making the call here (whether me or another) is not amenable to hearing your concerns that this is unrealistic"... frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the devs are so seemingly-intentionally vague about what's a bug and what's "working as intended" specifically to forestall complaint threads like this...

Oh, and Alwarren, that "game balance designer" was in the context of this:

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

That one was overtly a PVE/SP/co-op thing, AI accuracy-based-on-weapon type.

[Masharra 10]

Concering RiE's post Chortles I am forced to wuote another forum member with this in regards to the Sniper Rifle

All this recent "balancing" talk starts to bother me.

Like here feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8656

Why limit fire rate of semi-auto rifle to be the same as bolt action one? Why then bother to have different weapon models if they have identical specs? More logical would be to make realistic characteristics, which ARE balanced: GM-6 has low recoil, high fire rate, but worse accuracy and effective range.

On the issue with ballistics. Taking aside sci-fi projectiles, while it makes AI to hit targets, this also makes it SUPER EASY for humans to hit targets. Especially moving targets are easy, because bullet flight time is just ridiculous. All you did with this balancing is just shift both AI and human effectiveness to higher %.

I almost want to quote myself, but dont have to as another person also noted my same observations.

now if only I could find it xP

basically we are all carrying smg's/ light carbines

Edited June 6, 2013 by Masharra

[chortles 263]

That's one thing I'm definitely wondering about, hence why I said that I admittedly would like a dev to elaborate on what was meant by "balancing issues", especially because of "by design different than in real life" and "working as intended" meaning a conscious and intentional decision as opposed to an oversight or bug, and as Blu3sman said, there is balance in real life... just not along the same lines as arcadey-shooters.

[das attorney 858]

basically we are all carrying smg's/ light carbines

That's basically the problem with heavy rifles in the Arma series.

There's nothing to stop people running about with them like an SMG. Dexterity config value seems to make little difference to how a gun is wielded and the ability to shoulder and fire them willy nilly while standing is a huge problem.

Those guns (.50 rifles) seem to have all the benefits, but with none of the drawbacks.

[dmarkwick 261]

Those examples had equal footing but they weren't 1:1 copies

So it's pretty much like ArmA 3 then? Typical Metalcraze, everything you've contributed in this thread is a snapshot of your gripes in the middle of a development alpha, not that that ever stopped you from insisting that everything you see that's wrong is a deliberate design decision away from your OFP at the behest of new members. How many times now has something been fixed that you've previously complained is a poor design?

Well it looks like this thread is destined for the long-haul, to-ing & fro-ing like those other zombie threads :)

[chortles 263]

Das Attorney gets what "real-life balance" means, though this leaves me wondering what the hell the dexterity config value is supposed to be doing by devs' intent, because it's seemingly not doing what Das Attorney (and I guess us in general) would think it would do... and as I said in the movement speed tweaking thread, COD (at least until Black Ops II) actually did simulate encumbrance, as narrowly as it did, with (as long as you didn't have a Sniper Rifle, LMG or Riot Shield with the Speed proficiency) MW3 ironically the most realistic in the series there (movement speed is the lower between your two carried weapons)...

DMarkwick, thanks for getting what I meant; as I pointed out to metalcraze it's actually less 1:1 than the initial alpha was, and even then the two factions did have some asymmetricality in their respective automatic weapons. ;)

I would point out that if it's true that these devs aren't up to making OFP... well, frankly, the devs who made OFP have been gone, it wasn't going to be coming back anyway and these devs sure as hell never promised to try (other than what Moricky said about OFP: Resistance as an inspiration for the SP campaign... though nowadays, who the hell knows what the campaign is supposed to be).

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles

[metalcraze 290]

This reminds me of what I remarked about when I asked you about the one-save-slot thing in the corresponding thread and you said that it gave you hope essentially in spite of the devs...

Exactly. The case of I Want to Believe. But I'm not sure if that ever came to fruition since the blog post or will it ever.

you don't trust them to essentially remake OFP (especially since there won't be a CWR3) and you're outright discounting the creative director's credibility, then what the hell is he supposed to say?

The problem is that for Jay Crowe repeating 'authenticity' so often the game is lacking one.

and especially when the game is currently getting so much more positive feedback outside of these forums because it's not like Arma 2...

And that's a positive thing how? Because judging by those posts it's treated like an unpolished Battlefield 3 clone.

I'm actually going to disagree here: discounting the anti-materiel rifles, OPFOR alone has both a 7.62 x 51 mm DMR (whether that's simulated realistically is another story, of course) and a 200-round belt-fed LMG while BLUFOR has an accurized service rifle and a 100-round, magazine-fed light support weapon, an arrangement which actually reminds me of the XM8 family, and this is actually more asymmetrical than the initial alpha release when both sides had 7.62 mm DMRs (when the MXM and EBR both used the same twenty-round 7.62 x 45 mm magazines).

But the problem here is that MX was turned into LMG with firemode switch being broken on every single of those rifles. And yet you can't fit the same bipod+mag kit on other MXes. Because you gotta give BLUFOR their LMG even if the weapon choice for it makes no sense at all since you basically have exact same rifle models... being nerfed both ways for no reason - so much for 'authenticity'. As for the MXM - in doing so they've made it mostly no different from the usual MX. Not much of an improvement there. Still not as bad as an utterly pointless MX carbine vs. usual MX.

There's no reason not to use long MXM in CQB and there's no reason to use MX carbine in CQB. For an 'authentic' game that's the problem.

but I tend to consider the legendary "balance" of Starcraft something that Blizzard basically lucked into and then rode the coattails of for years...

That's actually a great example of sides being entirely different and yet nobody complains. People however do complain a lot when sides in RTS are mostly clones of each other (why Westwood RTS never entered competitive arena). But for some reason in shooters today it's a great thing when the only difference between enemies is their uniform color. This is something I can't understand.

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze