Balancing?

[Wolfstriked 11]

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.

Thats why I say make the sniper get its own animation where its slower to move around(like how the AT when shouldered effects the player)coupled with the inability to tactical pace with the weapon ala Arma2-inability to fire while moving-unless at walking speeds.More sway for standing/crouched also adds drawbacks.To be honest here CQB with the .50's is a bitch I am finding and I usually get killed and then choose a more CQB style weapon gladly.Also,I am all for slowing down the ROF of the Sniper in question as it needs artificial drawbacks implemented.Also,aren't these weapons fictional.....so why can't they slow ROF on any weapon??I do see most sniper players running around with their pistols out which is a good thing IMO.

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?

Top be honest I am fine with artificial game balancing that trys to mimic somehow reality.Sway in real life is probably identical with a rifle/carbine combo in most cases as a few inches of metal tubes will not cause that much weight distribution difference.So add in something artificial that can add benefit to one while adding drawback to the other.With the current carbines being less accurate than its rifle counterpart its Rifle+1 with Carbine-1.Reduce sway while standing/crouching for carbines by a noticeable amount and its now Rifle-1 and Carbine+1.Now carbines can give a slight advantage when you try to get a few shots while in up positions.

Also,right now all weapons are ridiculous to fight with when not prone and any attack on the AI is suicide since they will turn with no fear and one shot you between the eyes.Why the AI don't have dispersion penalties when fired on I will never know.And dispersion should slightly decrease for them after first shot to "balance" out how we players have to first fire,watch bullet impact and then adjust.But if they fire a shot at a player then they should become the sharpshooters they are now since a hard to fight enemy is engaging.Played on a server that seemed to have AI set to dumb and got so bored that I realized I would not stick with the game.I need challenge but dammit I want the AI to have to fight for it also.;)

Edited June 6, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[das attorney 858]

imo, a new animation set purely for 'heavy' weapons would be ideal, so that they are carried around 'on the hip' and could only be sighted when prone or rested on something (like a wall). But I guess this sort of thing would be very labour intensive to do, so might not be a viable option (at least in the short term).

Just off the top of my head though, you could have solution with existing values in weapon config. Use the dexterity value to also determine how slow the weapon is to shoulder, (I don't think it does that at the mo) and also you could set a threshold so weapons over a certain weight can't even be shouldered while standing.

If I get time, maybe I will try and make a proof of concept mod (just as an experiment). I don't imagine too many people would download it (due to the nature of it) but it would be a good experiment to at least see if there are ways in the current state of the game to reduce the artificially easy handling these types of weapon enjoy.

I know L'Etranger has made a weapon balance mod (which I thought was an awesome bold move considering the evolving nature of the game :) ), and maybe heavy guns should have to make more of what that mod provides.

Who knows though? Maybe BIS will pleasantly surprise us all with changed handling for heavy weapons as part of the recoil review they are doing.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Das Attorney

[chortles 263]

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.

"I Want To Believe" -- and there's your problem right there, your heart wants what your brain tells you isn't happening yet in that post you essentially had both of them talking at once, so you're essentially hoping against hope. :p Although I just checked SITREP #00012, and there was no ETA on the change, only that "We hope to expand upon this decision in a blog post at a later date", so it's essentially "we're doing it but we're not telling you when"... they didn't retract, they didn't promise much to begin with! :lol:

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

After last year's E3/Medal of Honor: Warfighter brouhaha, I've since realized that "authenticity" and "realism" are two very different things... then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole harping about 'authenticity' was just in response to all the complainers about the future setting.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you think so lowly of the current devs, why the hell would you actually think that these devs could succeed in going down the route you want, unless you're hoping that they somehow magically stumble into it by accident, enough to want them to in the first place?

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

Did I say anything about it as an absolute positive? No, you misinterpreted what I was saying...

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.

It's kind of gameplay-irrelevant that you can't move the MX SW bipod over when that doesn't do anything in the first place. :p I'll agree that that lack of bipod functionality is unrealistic, but there you go: no bipods work in vanilla anyway, so it doesn't make the rest of the MX series worse in gameplay for lacking a modeled bipod. As far as "BLUFOR gotta have their LMG"... it's pretty much in the vein of the Colt Automatic Rifle (certainly moreso than the M27 IAR), while the MXM in its current 6.5 mm implementation is basically filling the SAM-R/SDM-R.

"Authenticity" vs. "realism" again... I'll also agree re: the lack of weapon length and collision, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they're deliberately shying away from it because of all the complaints about indoors movement in Arma 2... combined with the possibility that they just don't know how to do realistic weapon collision -- or engine limitations prevent them from doing it -- without the same limitations as the Rifle Collision addon (namely the fact that that seems to simply trigger the double-tap-LCtrl lower/raise weapon action which isn't as smooth as would be possible in real life for the lighter, shorter weapons).

That's actually a great example of sides being entirely different and yet nobody complains.

... two words: "dumb luck". As far as RTS player complaints about lack of asymmetry... I call it "they're chasing StarCraft's legend, even though it was a fluke that Blizzard could never really replicate consistently."

imo, a new animation set purely for 'heavy' weapons would be ideal, so that they are carried around 'on the hip' and could only be sighted when prone or rested on something (like a wall). But I guess this sort of thing would be very labour intensive to do, so might not be a viable option (at least in the short term).

One thing I've sensed is that Arma 3 seems to be very much influenced by "very labour intensive to do, therefore won't do", from no non-Steamworks version to no weapon switch while on the move and so on...

Just off the top of my head though, you could have solution with existing values in weapon config. Use the dexterity value to also determine how slow the weapon is to shoulder, (I don't think it does that at the mo) and also you could set a threshold so weapons over a certain weight can't even be shouldered while standing.

Therein lies a problem: can Dexterity be made to directly determine these? Ironically enough, "how slow the weapon is to shoulder" is a stat that does factors into arcadey FPS balance sometimes, even if the weapon select screens' stats don't display it.

Food for thought: sometimes realism in the sense of "more simulated factors" is a buff/nerf, why fear the word? To paraphrase this game's creative director, "let's not be afraid of that word"... :lol:

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles

[das attorney 858]

can Dexterity be made to directly determine these?

I'm not sure as I've yet to have a good delve around in the game code, but as far as I remember in A2, you can specify which anim is played in the weapon config for recoil, so if it is possible to create some children of the "shoulder weapon" anim class and give them all a different speed, then you can assign them on a per weapon basis.

EIT: Actually, I don't think that's possible.

If not, maybe there is a hacky way to force it with looping scripts and config adjustments to the anims (which might look a bit funny but will be proof of concept - which is good enough ).

As I say though, I'm not sure if it's actually possible, but might be fun to play about with and see if anything workable happens. :)

Edited June 6, 2013 by Das Attorney

[metalcraze 290]

It's kind of gameplay-irrelevant that you can't move the MX SW bipod over when that doesn't do anything in the first place. I'll agree that that lack of bipod functionality is unrealistic, but there you go: no bipods work in vanilla anyway, so it doesn't make the rest of the MX series worse in gameplay for lacking a modeled bipod.

But when and if they add that bipod functionality (which will not happen at release) that's going to be an even more glaring issue. And the problem is - BIS seldom improves content until the next game/expansion. After all in A2 1.0 AI was walking through walls and BIS has fixed it only 2 years later when OA was already 1 year old. And it's not a lone example.

As far as "BLUFOR gotta have their LMG"... it's pretty much in the vein of the Colt Automatic Rifle (certainly moreso than the M27 IAR), while the MXM in its current 6.5 mm implementation is basically filling the SAM-R/SDM-R.

Except the point was that there is no reason for MX LMG version not to have a semi-auto mode and no reason for other MXs not to accept 100 bullet mags. This is the glaring example of balance that makes no sense and is actually worse than what we see in TDM shooters. They at least have different weapons for LMG and AR roles.

but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they're deliberately shying away from it because of all the complaints about indoors movement in Arma 2...

And that's the problem. Casual players complained that they couldn't run around in tight takistani houses with stuff like M16 and M240 and scoring frags so BIS "fixed" it instead of doing the right thing - like you know - not making carbines and pistols utterly pointless.

Before the "fix" people had to use weapons that are better in tight spaces be it a carbine, smg or even a pistol if it was a marksman or a machinegunner going in there. All weapons mattered, just like they do in real life.

So carbines, TRGs - they are there for gunporn basically. Shorter effective range for long range engagements while not a single advantage over any other weapon in CQB.

combined with the possibility that they just don't know how to do realistic weapon collision -- or engine limitations prevent them from doing it -- without the same limitations as the Rifle Collision addon (namely the fact that that seems to simply trigger the double-tap-LCtrl lower/raise weapon action which isn't as smooth as would be possible in real life for the lighter, shorter weapons).

More like it's a lot easier not to do something than do something and make sure it works right. After all ArmA3 already sells like hot pies because DayZ/Wasteland fans - why complicate things?

ArmA fans bought it too because it's not in Dragon Rising territory yet so everything is a OK.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you think so lowly of the current devs, why the hell would you actually think that these devs could succeed in going down the route you want, unless you're hoping that they somehow magically stumble into it by accident, enough to want them to in the first place?

One more voice is better than none. If me whining and hitting the alarm button has any chance of making ArmA stay a good game and not a forgettable mediocrity that will lose half its fanbase in November - why not?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[chortles 263]

But when and if they add that bipod functionality (which will not happen at release) that's going to be an even more glaring issue. And the problem is - BIS seldom improves content until the next game/expansion. After all in A2 1.0 AI was walking through walls and BIS has fixed it only 2 years later when OA was already 1 year old. And it's not a lone example.

Mind you, what I would expect to happen at that hypothetical point (adding bipod functionality in vanilla) would be for the bipod model to be removed from the MX SW and made into a separate object as befitting an attachment... but then again my expectation is that that would only happen when underbarrel as detachable finally happens, which there's no signs of. :/

Except the point was that there is no reason for MX LMG version not to have a semi-auto mode and no reason for other MXs not to accept 100 bullet mags. This is the glaring example of balance that makes no sense and is actually worse than what we see in TDM shooters. They at least have different weapons for LMG and AR roles.

Excuse me while I joke that the M27 IAR would like to have a word with you, except that conversation has already been had about the real-life counterparts... while I would sympathize, this is the sort of thing that (especially with the MX magazine capacity disparity) would seem to be easily enough changed in RV4 that it merits a feedback ticket.

And that's the problem. Casual players complained that they couldn't run around in tight takistani houses with stuff like M16 and M240 and scoring frags so BIS "fixed" it instead of doing the right thing - like you know - not making carbines and pistols utterly pointless.

I'm pretty sure the complaint was even when they weren't wielding primary weapons...

More like it's a lot easier not to do something than do something and make sure it works right.

As you'll see from my earlier post, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the answer.

After all ArmA3 already sells like hot pies because DayZ/Wasteland fans - why complicate things?

ArmA fans bought it too because it's not in Dragon Rising territory yet so everything is a OK.

I think the second half has more to do with it than the former... there is no, no way that the devs would have missed all the "this is not Arma 2, therefore buy it!" reviews... but when they also see all the people already on their forums, both new and those who have been here for quite some time, who like the direction and therefore speak up in support of the direction and encourage the devs to continue that direction?

I want to emphasize "direction" here, not the "state" -- since of course even some of the long-timers qualify the hell out of their support and request changes, and as we saw with grenades even the devs have intended tweaks.

One more voice is better than none. If me whining and hitting the alarm button has any chance of making ArmA stay a good game and not a forgettable mediocrity that will lose half its fanbase in November - why not?

... yeah, see, I see this as having the opposite effect. I mean, shit, when the creative director is saying "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined," mocking the engine improvements as "welcome to the late 90s", the then-other creative director mocks CWC as "a shitty game", another dev refers to "old hardcores" as myopic, and the Steamworks decision was essentially carried out behind the forums members' backs and then presented as a fait accompli with the announcement outright saying that they knew that they were going to piss off members but were doing it anyway, dev statements re: the stuff you call for (such as TKOH flight model, windage, deployable bipods) are qualified as heck* as you yourself said, you do seem to basically feel that the creative director is lying to you, and the devs have found that they have a base which will speak up in support of the direction that you accuse the devs of?

* I'm left thinking of the dev response to the Steam Workshop brouhaha... "we'll ask Valve because you were so vocal, but we're not guaranteeing anything and we're not going to roll back Steam Workshop support even if the EULA remains the way that it is".

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles

[metalcraze 290]

Excuse me while I joke that the M27 IAR would like to have a word with you, except that conversation has already been had about the real-life counterparts...

There's no difference between MX and MXSW except the latter having a bipod added. Last time I've checked bipods didn't break weapon switches.

And M4 can accept same mags as M27. But MXSW can't accept 30 round mag and likewise MX can't accept 100. But there's zero reason not to for them. They are exactly the same weapon.

I'm pretty sure the complaint was even when they weren't wielding primary weapons...

That's what auto-lowering and low-ready stances are for. And learning not to strafe through doorways but going around corners. It takes practice sure. But so does CQB IRL.

I think the second half has more to do with it than the former... there is no, no way that the devs would have missed all the "this is not Arma 2, therefore buy it!" reviews... but when they also see all the people already on their forums, both new and those who have been here for quite some time, who like the direction and therefore speak up in support of the direction and encourage the devs to continue that direction? I want to emphasize "direction" here, not the "state" -- since of course even some of the long-timers qualify the hell out of their support and request changes, and as we saw with grenades even the devs have intended tweaks.

The problem is that "this is not ArmA, buy it" crowd is a lot more numerous. There's not much an ArmA fandom can do versus 1.5 million people shouting "make it another Battlefield 3" and throwing money at devs.

"Their forums"? You can get attacked here for using 'realism' word nowadays.

... yeah, see, I see this as having the opposite effect. I mean, shit, when the creative director is saying "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined," mocking the changes as "welcome to the late 90s" (implicitly "catching up to every other shooter"), the then-other creative director mocks CWC as "a shitty game", another dev refers to "old hardcores" as myopic, and the Steamworks decision was essentially carried out behind the forums members' backs and then presented as a fait accompli with the announcement outright saying that they knew that they were going to piss off members but were doing it anyway, and you do seem to basically feel that the creative director is lying to you...

I admit I've enjoyed his backpedaling with "ok I've played CWC and mission design is awesome!" after calling it shit :rolleyes:

[progamer 14]

I quit every shooter to avoid what the dayz players/ cod kids wanted games to be like. Weapons should be realistic even though it means they would be considered overpowered. Mission makers decide on how to balance the game depending on the game type, BIS should not be making the game more pvp friendly because that is the mission makers job. I would hate to have to quite Arma because it lost realism to be more pvp friendly.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:27 ----------

I really hope the "balancing" job at BIS only is about finding real world weapons that realistically counter "unbalanced" weapons that are that way realistically and not some bf3 or cod game balance designer. We may have to fight if the devs want to go the bf3 and cod route slowly because a ton of people here quit pretty much all other fps games due to the reasons we are arguing about here.

---------- Post added at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was at 23:56 ----------

I would love to have a dev clarify on what exactly the game balance designer will be doing.

Edited June 7, 2013 by ProGamer

[chortles 263]

There's no difference between MX and MXSW except the latter having a bipod added. Last time I've checked bipods didn't break weapon switches.

And M4 can accept same mags as M27. But MXSW can't accept 30 round mag and likewise MX can't accept 100. But there's zero reason not to for them. They are exactly the same weapon.

Again: that's the sort of thing that I would throw in as a Feedback Tracker ticket.

I do have ideas for just how we could be differentiating them... too bad my ideas aren't simulated yet. :lol: For example, heat dispersal with regards to barrels.

That's what auto-lowering and low-ready stances are for. And learning not to strafe through doorways but going around corners. It takes practice sure. But so does CQB IRL.

You... kind of missed my point there, didn't you? About it not just being primary weapons?

Again: I'm not opposed to the idea of auto-lowering or low ready... I can't remember who, but I believe someone had the idea of "Fire" key/button causing the weapon to raise-from-low-ready/fire, which is not the same as the current raise/lower implementation.

The problem is that "this is not ArmA, buy it" crowd is a lot more numerous. There's not much an ArmA fandom can do versus 1.5 million people shouting "make it another Battlefield 3" and throwing money at devs.

"Their forums"? You can get attacked here for using 'realism' word nowadays.

*cough* I didn't say that I want another Battlefield 3... what, you thought that I want limited MP, grinding for unlocks, bullshit DLC* and having to deal with EA? ;)

* That is, as opposed to AWESOME DLC. Such a thing exists... EADICE did not give any. :( Then again, I've tended to chalk up BF3's problems to "EA chasing Activision in particular"...

I admit I've enjoyed his backpedaling with "ok I've played CWC and mission design is awesome!" after calling it shit :rolleyes:

Amusing... :p but even if he's since retracted it, I still found it a telling quote.

I would love to have a dev clarify on what exactly the game balance designer will be doing.

Here's the job posting.

[lucable 10]

This was a while ago and I don't think it's a problem anymore (I hope not). We will see when the full release comes out, or at least have a better idea when the Beta comes out.

[progamer 14]

Again: that's the sort of thing that I would throw in as a Feedback Tracker ticket.

I do have ideas for just how we could be differentiating them... too bad my ideas aren't simulated yet. :lol: For example, heat dispersal with regards to barrels.You... kind of missed my point there, didn't you? About it not just being primary weapons?

Again: I'm not opposed to the idea of auto-lowering or low ready... I can't remember who, but I believe someone had the idea of "Fire" key/button causing the weapon to raise-from-low-ready/fire, which is not the same as the current raise/lower implementation.*cough* I didn't say that I want another Battlefield 3... what, you thought that I want limited MP, grinding for unlocks, bullshit DLC* and having to deal with EA? ;)

* That is, as opposed to AWESOME DLC. Such a thing exists... EADICE did not give any. :( Then again, I've tended to chalk up BF3's problems to "EA chasing Activision in particular"...Amusing... :p but even if he's since retracted it, I still found it a telling quote.Here's the job posting.

Bis should chase realism to an extent higher than other games. I wanted to know wether the game balance designer was going to use realism to balance or cod/bf3 to balance.

---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:58 ----------

This was a while ago and I don't think it's a problem anymore (I hope not). We will see when the full release comes out, or at least have a better idea when the Beta comes out.

The opening for game balance designer shows the problem is still apparent with the information we have.

[lucable 10]

Let's hope not COD/BF3/etc... to balance, that would lead to the demise of ArmA. I will be waiting hopefully that it is as realistic as possible, balanced or not.

[progamer 14]

Let's hope not COD/BF3/etc... to balance, that would lead to the demise of ArmA. I will be waiting hopefully that it is as realistic as possible, balanced or not.

I would love to have the devs acually discuss this with us rather than faking transparency as the planetside 2 devs did.

[chortles 263]

The issue has been noted and it's probably going to be looked on, Raedek's comment was right for time being, but we are still developing and enhancing the game :icon_twisted:

From earlier in the thread, boldfacing done by me.

[OrLoK 20]

for time being.

This could be key.

It's fun to speculate and gripe though, within reason.

Rgds

LoK

[ak1287 1]

This could be key.

It's fun to speculate and gripe though, within reason.

Rgds

LoK

Is it?

Speculation has a purpose, and I can understand that. Even civil discourse with the developers has a purpose.

Griping is way too similar to high-school girl mentality for me, though. I cannot understand the appeal.

[chortles 263]

Pffft-haha, you're right orlok! It's certain some much-needed context to that remark, namely that this is WIP as hell but it's intentional "for time being". The problem is that without the criterion explained, people are going to assume the worst. Sure, you had some people seeming to panic over in that "sniper ballistics" thread, and hopefully the solution does change to a more proper one (AI being able to take zeroing into account past 800 meters) but over there at least we saw what the hell the dev was talking about!

Even civil discourse with the developers has a purpose.

Emphasis on civil discourse, not "have to fight". :p

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

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.

I guess you and I played very different Arma 2/OA games because the one I played the 'balance' was barely there. However this was more of a config issue that was/is being addressed by the CCP project run by kju.

[Masharra 10]

The main fear I will always have is this change. It may be for good, it may be for bad. I dont know.

I do know what this kind of popularity has done to other games though, and thus I worry. Other games didnt change instantly instantly.

Mechwarrior 3 - 4 was subtle then came MechAssault.

Rainbow Six - Raven Shield subtle - Then came Lockdown. Now we have Vegas and its ilk.

Ghost Recon 1 and its expansions- Then the warning lights turned on with Ghost Recon 2, then GRAW appeared. Now they use invisibility cloaks and cast magic spells on each other.

Deus Ex 1 to "warning lights popped up on 2" Now we have the current incarnation.

Lets leave shooters

Warhammer DoW1 to DoW2

The last shooter that I can think of that didnt compromise was swat, but there hasnt been a swat since...

:D

Actually correction

CoD and games of its ilk dont compromise. They appeal to their main audience and bugger all the rest. Albiet I dont know of many "milsimmers" who go into cod and try telling them you shouldnt be able to do x,y,z.

I suppose the real questions that needs to be asked and answered is " Who is ArmA's main audience? Who do "they"(devs) want it to be? and finally Which audience are they catering to?

The only genre that appears to be immune to these types of shifts is grand scale strategy games. They dont appear to have any problem with saying "too many numbers? tough luck for you. why dont you go play something else?"

I suppose they dont have to worry about RA2 players popping up and demanding certain changes because RA2 players will be playing RA2 unlike the fps genre which seems to be full of publishers who seem to constantly want everyone to enjoy their game. Which is why I love paradox interactive, perhaps even more than BIS.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Masharra

[pettka 694]

I have a feeling that most of you confuse our Task Force Balance with someone aiming to have the same sides. Balancing, as we use the term, it is mainly working on AI and making them in par with players :icon_twisted:

As for the sides, they seem more equal now, in Alpha, than they are going to be. Don't forget that Alpha is sort of test bed with some assets, coloured factions with generic equipment. Take a look at Zafir - 7.62mm MG for Red faction, do you think there's going to be a direct counterpart on Blue side? Or take a look at choppers, at least the known for Beta, there are dedicated transport, attack and light for Blue where Red have only semi-light and attack-transport one which is terrifying in both roles. I don't see any direct equation here and I hope you won't either :icon_twisted:

[dmarkwick 261]

I have a feeling that most of you confuse our Task Force Balance with someone aiming to have the same sides. Balancing, as we use the term, it is mainly working on AI and making them in par with players :icon_twisted:

Guys the reasons have been laid out, it's an AI issue. The balance has been implemented to prevent exploit of an AI weakness, and as such it's going to be in the vanilla game release to make the game play properly as designed.

There you go. Had it right the first time :)

[chortles 263]

Rainbow Six - Raven Shield subtle - Then came Lockdown. Now we have Vegas and its ilk.

Ghost Recon 1 and its expansions- Then the warning lights turned on with Ghost Recon 2, then GRAW appeared. Now they use invisibility cloaks and cast magic spells on each other.

Unfortunately I'm admittedly biased against these examples, ironically because I recognize my own biases against them... first, for being Ubisoft games (just look at the public attitudes on DRM and piracy and tell me that you see that coming out of anyone at BI?) and two, for being Tom Clancy games, as my remarks in the Splinter Cell: Blacklist thread may show. ;)

(For example: The whole plot of Vegas 2 happened because Ding Chavez is nowhere near an adequate judge of character, much less a selection cadre. I had even a friend mocking the plot, the beginning and the end, for how the plot is pretty obviously Ding Chavez's fault...)

Deus Ex 1 to "warning lights popped up on 2" Now we have the current incarnation.

I admittedly don't see this quite the same way you do -- fair point on "2" (Invisible War), though it was seemingly produced during rough times for Ion Storm -- but Human Revolution was done by a different studio altogether... to me drawing a connection to this would be as if you'd traced OFP's lineage to Dragon Rising yet professed to be surprised when DR turned out the way it did. :p

The last shooter that I can think of that didnt compromise was swat, but there hasnt been a swat since...

:D

... well, that was pretty instructive wasn't it? :D:lol:

Although, unlike BI they weren't self-publishing the way that BI does and thus it seems "not in the driver's seat"... apparently right after that they went straight to BioShock??

Actually correction

CoD and games of its ilk dont compromise. They appeal to their main audience and bugger all the rest. Albiet I dont know of many "milsimmers" who go into cod and try telling them you shouldnt be able to do x,y,z.

Three words: "tactical crouch servers".

Though there was an interesting situation in the BF3 player base when Close Quarters DLC was announced, it was essentially presented as "you veterans were already catered to with Back to Karkand, now it's the CQB fans' turn" and DICE specifically cited the 'popularity' of the notorious Metro map, and I recall people protesting that they'd gone to BF3 for "big maps and combined arms"... :lol:

I suppose the real questions that needs to be asked and answered is " Who is ArmA's main audience? Who do "they"(devs) want it to be? and finally Which audience are they catering to?

... yeah, watch this one disappear into the ether. Unless you've got tickets to E3? ;)

The only genre that appears to be immune to these types of shifts is grand scale strategy games. They dont appear to have any problem with saying "too many numbers? tough luck for you. why dont you go play something else?"

I suppose they dont have to worry about RA2 players popping up and demanding certain changes because RA2 players will be playing RA2 unlike the fps genre which seems to be full of publishers who seem to constantly want everyone to enjoy their game. Which is why I love paradox interactive, perhaps even more than BIS.

I think that that's actually because at this point Paradox Interactive is immune to the apocalypse. :lol: And hell, maybe it does in fact come down to some inherent difference between strategy/tactics games and "real time, 1:1 character control" games?

Then again, the only big-time "(relatively) grand strategy game" series that I remember besides Paradox Interactive stuff and the Total War series, were Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition (the former in decline-of-the-Han Dynasty China, the latter in Warring States Japan) and even they got thrown by the wayside too despite having been Koei's decades-long flagship franchises, because Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors were the new hotness... though it didn't help them that the basic strategic portion behind both games was adopted into the Warriors franchise with the games' respective Empires installments, with real-time hack-and-slash battles in place of turn-based tactical or pseudo-real-time set piece battles.

pettka, I would note that BLUFOR already doesn't have "direct counterpart on Blue side" for the marksman rifles and LMGs as is, actually less so than at initial alpha after the MXM got changed... so what are you teasing for BLUFOR by that statement, I wonder? ;)

Hahaha, job well done putting paid to this thread... thank you, pettka.

[Masharra 10]

Many thanks pettka, your post has alleviated some of my concerns. In some ways I dont like seeing things before they are "done". Its bad for my blood pressure. Atleast with a finished product I know what I am getting. Alpha, beta, all this can change :P

AH task force balance is really Task force AI then? STOP PLAYING WITH MY HEAD :D :803:

[simon1279 52]

I have a feeling that most of you confuse our Task Force Balance with someone aiming to have the same sides. Balancing, as we use the term, it is mainly working on AI and making them in par with players :icon_twisted:

As for the sides, they seem more equal now, in Alpha, than they are going to be. Don't forget that Alpha is sort of test bed with some assets, coloured factions with generic equipment. Take a look at Zafir - 7.62mm MG for Red faction, do you think there's going to be a direct counterpart on Blue side? Or take a look at choppers, at least the known for Beta, there are dedicated transport, attack and light for Blue where Red have only semi-light and attack-transport one which is terrifying in both roles. I don't see any direct equation here and I hope you won't either :icon_twisted:

Believe me mr pettka i really hope for this to be true, because watching all new players came here with A3, i'm very afraid to see A3 like a red orchestra, or call of duty or battlefield or every other shooting (rambo) game around, watching these forums, lastly seems to be in steam's forum, about RO, CoD and similar, with new players asking for balance, and other arcade rambo stuff wich is present in all of the others arcade shooters, asking for buffs exc. and thinking arma3 is the next shooting game and not as usual in arma series a mil sim for passionated in real war, and not the hollywood war, this is my most huge fear untill the full game will be out....., and i'm afraid we already have the lastest mil sim wich is ArmA 2, and A3 will become one of the other shooters, killing the main focus of arma series, yep but... with improved graphics/engine/animations and overall stuff, wich is better for run & gun rambo guys came here

Edited June 7, 2013 by Simon1279

[ghostone 13]

What we call balancing is inspecting AI and making it more "balanced" for the player. Balancing of the weapons is not done by setting similar weapons to same values or by equating sides to be the exact counter parts. However some of the decisions we made are hard and very unpleasant to do. But it must be for the sake of fluent and balanced gameplay we want to achieve.

I don't quite undrestand the argument about pistols and carbines - it makes the roles of soldier different (different effective range values). I don't think that the EBR/MXM point here is valid. MXM as the family of the MX rifle has full auto mode which makes it a direct counter part of the EBR but it has different type of ammo which has a different impact in the game. I understand that sometimes it may seem weird what you see in the alpha dev branch but this is why we chose it.

We make changes - you coment - we react. I think this is one of the best cooperations between devs and the community.:)