Balancing?

[Fap 1]

This terrifies me. I understand that AI is very difficult to program but I feel this is a step in the wrong direction.

I am off to play Counter Strike: Global Offensive, where there isn't much "balancing" going on, and each team has different weapons that do different things, yet it all depends on skill.

I am confused why BIS thinks it's acceptable to "BALANCE" a MILITARY SIMULATOR . Need we really remind them what genre it is they're making a game for?

Really?

Catering for the masses... sad.

[joseph 1]

What ticks me off is how people think this is a game. It is a SIMULATOR! There is no "nerfing" or "derping". Sgt. Joseph

[ProfTournesol 956]

What ticks me off is how people think this is a game. It is a SIMULATOR! There is no "nerfing" or "derping". Sgt. Joseph

Nope, it's a game. VBS is a simulator.

[GReeves 10]

Nope, it's a game. VBS is a simulator.

From the ArmA homepage:

"Lifelike combat simulator"

:)

[metalcraze 290]

Simulators are games that try to represent aspects of real life.

There is no difference between how VBS and ArmA play. At all. Zero.

Edited June 8, 2013 by metalcraze

[-Gews- 1]

I agree the talk of balancing is extremely worrying... such as "nerfing" the fire rate of a semi-auto rifle to the same as its bolt-action counterpart... etc. There should be no artificial balance at all. The only goal should be making everything as real as possible - then everything starts to balance itself out (to some extent).

I think Byku made a very good post:

I thought by recreating something in Arma devs would make it as close to reality as possible... and now we've got GM6, and I suppose only the visual aspect is real...

He's right.

What was the point of the devs going and actually firing a GM6 if they are going to use "science fiction" ammunition and make it take 1.25 seconds to chamber each new round? Byku is right - it only looks like a GM6... it's not a GM6. :(

I get frustrated about these things since I want ArmA to be as good as possible...

[dmarkwick 261]

So it seems that this thread will never die, as there is, yet again, endless circular discussion.

It's already been explained that the "balancing" is to counter the exploitation of AI that cannot take every situation into account. The "balancing" is for the game. First and foremost, the game has to work as designed.

"Realism" is a good goal, but if things need tweaking to get the product to work as designed, then it needs tweaking. The good thing is, that it can be tweaked to taste. These settings that everyone is getting so excited about can be changed easily, and in fact is the very thing that always, always happens with ArmA. Things get tweaked to realistic, because it can be done. ArmA is not designed as a pure PvP game, it has to work with & against AI.

So I guess that it is everyone's "right" to bleat away that they want "realism" out-the-box the way they want it, but don't discount the fact that everything can be changed. Again, there isn't a single "realism" user group here that does not do exactly this. No-one plays ArmA for realism without using mods & addons.

So maybe we can accept the fact that the game will be tweaked to play nicely with the vanila AI, and the included campaigns, and the other included missions, and that, as always, it can be changed for the people who want it changed?

[Alwarren 2767]

So I guess that it is everyone's "right" to bleat away that they want "realism" out-the-box the way they want it, but don't discount the fact that everything can be changed. Again, there isn't a single "realism" user group here that does not do exactly this. No-one plays ArmA for realism without using mods & addons.

Plainly, classifying people who voice a different opinion as "bleating" is downright insulting.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yes you're right I shouldn't have used it.

[metalcraze 290]

So maybe we can accept the fact that the game will be tweaked to play nicely with the vanila AI, and the included campaigns, and the other included missions, and that, as always, it can be changed for the people who want it changed?

I have a better idea. How about fixing AI instead? You know like it was for the past decade in ArmA?

Or how about making campaigns and included missions fit the gameplay, not the other way around?

Oh and the game always played nicely for the past 12 years too without "tweaks" but now suddenly they are needed out of the blue?

Mods are never a panacea to a broken game, they are a bandaid.

Edited June 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[Masharra 10]

So it seems that this thread will never die, as there is, yet again, endless circular discussion.

It's already been explained that the "balancing" is to counter the exploitation of AI that cannot take every situation into account. The "balancing" is for the game. First and foremost, the game has to work as designed.

"Realism" is a good goal, but if things need tweaking to get the product to work as designed, then it needs tweaking. The good thing is, that it can be tweaked to taste. These settings that everyone is getting so excited about can be changed easily, and in fact is the very thing that always, always happens with ArmA. Things get tweaked to realistic, because it can be done. ArmA is not designed as a pure PvP game, it has to work with & against AI.

So I guess that it is everyone's "right" to bleat away that they want "realism" out-the-box the way they want it, but don't discount the fact that everything can be changed. Again, there isn't a single "realism" user group here that does not do exactly this. No-one plays ArmA for realism without using mods & addons.

So maybe we can accept the fact that the game will be tweaked to play nicely with the vanila AI, and the included campaigns, and the other included missions, and that, as always, it can be changed for the people who want it changed?

I dont think the current arguement is truly against the balance, but the ways they are balancing. In this (sniper case) and AI it makes little sense to "us".

To exaggerate a bit they could turn the game into cod ai but as-long as it is moddable one should keep quiet?

Also I should say. The dependency of Arma on mods to "fix" things is a massive blessing and a massive curse.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Masharra

[dmarkwick 261]

I have a better idea. How about fixing AI instead? You know like it was for the past decade in ArmA?

I'm also sure that would be the best fix :) but we already know that AI is the most CPU-expensive part of the game. As I said in my previous post, the AI cannot handle every situation, and the more situations it needs to handle & monitor the worse the CPU stress becomes. There comes a point where so much stuff needs to be handled or monitored that the game clogs up with it all.

So it becomes a matter of priorities & pragmatism. Do we want AI that can realistically navigate urban areas & buildings and react appropriately at close/medium distances, or do we wish for AI that can engage at distance & make cover desicions based on threats beyond their normal area of concern?

In another format:

Do we wish for [insert your favourite thing] or do we wish for [insert your other favourite thing]? :)

Pragmatically, tweaking for balance with current AI where the values can be further tweaked by users for realism/PvP etc is the decision that's been made.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------

To exaggerate a bit they could turn the game into cod ai but as-long as it is moddable one should keep quiet?

Exaggeration never helps :) what they're doing is targeting specific areas of concern where the designed gameplay breaks down.

Also I should say. The dependency of Arma on mods to "fix" things is a massive blessing and a massive curse.

Yes, but, it's always going to be the way. ArmA out-the-box is always going to have issues somewhere for someone :)

Edited June 9, 2013 by DMarkwick

[metalcraze 290]

I'm also sure that would be the best fix :) but we already know that AI is the most CPU-expensive part of the game. As I said in my previous post, the AI cannot handle every situation, and the more situations it needs to handle & monitor the worse the CPU stress becomes. There comes a point where so much stuff needs to be handled or monitored that the game clogs up with it all.

That's not true. As ASR-AI, TPWCAS and HETMAN mods prove there's a huge headroom for AI improvements at next to none performance cost, yet BIS doesn't do even basic improvements.

ArmA1 AI was a big step up from OFP AI. ArmA2 AI was a big step up from ArmA1 AI. ArmA3 AI is exactly like ArmA2 AI at the moment with all its issues and shortcomings. And with 3-4 months left until game's release (because let's be honest, BIS will most likely not place ArmA3's release date in October-November for obvious reasons) there's not much hope.

Or are you telling me that teaching AI to use zeroing beyond 800m is so CPU intensive that it's better to gimp sniper rifles instead?

So it becomes a matter pf priorities & pragmatism. Do we want AI that can realistically navigate urban areas & buildings and react appropriately at close/medium distances, or do we wish for AI that can engage at distance & make cover desicions based on threats beyond their normal area of concern?

How about both? Navigating inside buildings using waypoints which are already there in ArmA3 has been done in games like R6 and SWAT3/4 since forever. Same as making AI immediately turn to and shoot a threat instead of spending 50 seconds rotating on his belly in panic. And somehow it didn't destroy CPUs of the time. Even Counter Strike from 1999 uses waypoints for its bots and somehow CPUs don't crash and burn - while at the same time CS bots don't run on bridges in circles or get stuck inside houses. It's been 4 years since 2009 when this system was introduced in A2 but issues were never fixed. Four years.

Edited June 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[Masharra 10]

I just wonder sometimes. I use gl4 almost exclusively. I can snipe from long range and they will go hide behind buildings and try to figure out where the shots came from, they will pop smoke. All without the need to edit weapon values. Watch the combined ops show case.

I saw not a single smoke. It was charge through concealment, take a knee, get shot, charge through concealment, go prone ,get shot. I may have been blind/ deaf. Where was the suppressing fire? Where was the smoke? All I heard was the ai performing bounding over-watch with nice voice acting but ultimately futilely.

Now ofcourse its alpha, and "we" aka people who arent me may fix these things. Hopefully. Hopefully they wont get tired of doing these things.

[dmarkwick 261]

Or are you telling me that teaching AI to use zeroing beyond 800m is so CPU intensive that it's better to gimp sniper rifles instead?

If it were just this one single issue then I would say no. But we should bear in mind it's the totality of all the situations that brings about the use of balancing as a workaround.

How about both?

Well, there you go :) I give a choice of two and your only response is that you want both. Which is kind of why this thread (and others like it) never really get anywhere (even when the situation is made clear) because people just want all the things, their way. Like it or not, ArmA 3 is a game, and is being balanced to play as a game. The reason we like it, is that it can be changed to be something else.

[metalcraze 290]

If it were just this one single issue then I would say no. But we should bear in mind it's the totality of all the situations that brings about the use of balancing as a workaround.

So can you explain to me how did AI manage to handle different weapon systems before but now we must have weapons of both sides mirrored for poor AI?

Because both M320 and GM6 do the exact same damage. Both GMG on Ifrit and Hunter do the exact same damage. It takes the same amount of damage to destroy both Hunter and Ifrit from both GMG of any side and antimateriel sniper rifles of any side. GM6 and M320 have also almost the same firerate (a semi auto and bolt action lol) - I guess poor AI needed that balancing?

How is this balance helping AI with crappy pathfinding and slow reactions? AI can't even deploy smoke to cover its wounded mates. AI never had any problems with firerates or weapon damage before, it doesn't matter to AI at all.

Well, there you go :) I give a choice of two and your only response is that you want both. Which is kind of why this thread (and others like it) never really get anywhere (even when the situation is made clear) because people just want all the things, their way. Like it or not, ArmA 3 is a game, and is being balanced to play as a game. The reason we like it, is that it can be changed to be something else.

Because you gave me two choices that are not mutually exclusive at all?

Like it or not, ArmA 3 is a game, and is being balanced to play as a game.

No it's balanced to play like a generic team deathmatch shooter. When I can run around with 17.5 kg GM Lynx shooting people in the exactly same fashion as I would do with a shotgun or M14 - is it normal? But I guess OFP, A1 and A2 aren't games anymore?

Edited June 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[Variable 322]

If it were just this one single issue then I would say no. But we should bear in mind it's the totality of all the situations that brings about the use of balancing as a workaround.

Well, there you go :) I give a choice of two and your only response is that you want both. Which is kind of why this thread (and others like it) never really get anywhere (even when the situation is made clear) because people just want all the things, their way. Like it or not, ArmA 3 is a game, and is being balanced to play as a game. The reason we like it, is that it can be changed to be something else.

DMarkwick, do you know for sure what will be possible, impossible, or simply too CPU extensive?

"Giving two options" - who said that these two are too much? what's the bar here and who set it exactly? Please don't set bars of implementation that are based on nothing but your hunch. If a BI dev comes here and say something is too complicated for a proper implementation that's ok, but until then, all these silencing of legitimate requests for features that make the game what is suppose to be are plain futile.

[chrisb 196]

All I can use are my observations, being that I use lots of ai mods or parts from mods along with huge amounts of other mods.

They (the ai) are cpu heavy, however, I have never found it a problem for my A2 pc, handles all my mods very well.

I think provided you have a lean/clean modern pc, you can expect that the game be pushed to its limits, should there be any..

___

Regards balancing the game, BIS just make it as you have the others, its for pc, you can't pander to all, which I'm sure you know already, all too well.:p

[dmarkwick 261]

Because you gave me two choices that are not mutually exclusive at all?

Ah, I see now I get it. No they weren't meant to be mutually exclusive, I just used any two issues that need to be worked on as examples of issues that would require extra processing or monitoring. I was trying to get across that it all builds up eventually, not that there are some issues that, after fixing, makes something else impossible.

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:08 ----------

DMarkwick, do you know for sure what will be possible, impossible, or simply too CPU extensive?

"Giving two options" - who said that these two are too much? what's the bar here and who set it exactly? Please don't set bars of implementation that are based on nothing but your hunch. If a BI dev comes here and say something is too complicated for a proper implementation that's ok, but until then, all these silencing of legitimate requests for features that make the game what is suppose to be are plain futile.

See my above reply to metalcraze. And, I'm only giving a reply to a discussion, as I see it. I'm not silencing anyone.

So it seems that the balancing of fictional equipments is aggravating some people, fair enough. I can't comment on the realism of fictional equipments, I'm not interested :) All I really care about (as far as this topic goes) is that equipments can be tweaked for "realism", and of course we already have a nice selection of *actually existing* equipments from previous ArmAs.

I might suggest that if people really wish for "realism" and intrinsic imbalances then they make use of the actual equipments where this makes sense, the real stuff. One thing is for sure though - BIS are damned if they do & damned if they don't :)

[jgaz-uk 133]

BIS have never been damned for the way they "keep it real" have they!

Variety is the spice of life and there has always been plenty of that up to now in the ArmA series. Imbalance in opposing weapons requires diversity of tactics, like a game of chess. Its a major part of what has kept people interested in Bohemia products (people are still playing OFP online after all these years). Give all the pieces the same capability in a game of Chess and it becomes Draughts.

Came away after watching the Beta streaming a little disillusioned, the Comanche is old hat (rejected by the US armed forces a while back) And I still say full screen zoom with circle overlay is not a 3D scope.

As I've said before BIS keep the faith

It is I believe what your very loyal fans (the ones who spend their money on all your output) would want yes?

Edited June 10, 2013 by jgaz-uk

[Mirudes 1]

That Gepard anti-materiel rifle is *actually existing* equipment!

From my experience with the beta-patches for ArmA2 I can say that nearly every patch will influence the artificial intelligence in any way.

So how do you come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to balance a game that has a unknown level of AI with the changes to real existing machinery, equipment and devices?

All you have to do is takeover the values for firerate, velocity and weight from the Wikipedia.

When that is finished, one can even think about balancing.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Mirudes

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

The topic seems to be swerving about a little. I think many players do come to Arma for realism "out of the box", but it's great that it can be enhanced via mods.

The AI is in a rough state at the moment, I find it very hard to believe that the AI as is will feature in the release. As I've said before tweaking is perhaps the operative word that should have been used rather than balancing. I think it's good to bring up ones concerns but I feel this is turning into a bit of a bash/complain-o-fest aimed at the devs.

Just MHO.

Rgds

Lok

[Wolfstriked 11]

Just don't dumb it down too much.Right now in MP you get kills and get killed yourself.The AI keeps you on your toes at all times and most of my deaths are when I stop trying to survive and start playing a game.If I run past an enemy at close range I want to be dead plain and simple.If I get a kill and see bullet impacts all around me and I keep firing I want to be dead.If enemy is firing on my position and I peek out to look I want a chance to be dead.With AI the way it is right now I find myself actually getting suppressed because I know they are firing accurately on my position and a slight peek out can be a death sentence.

[Masharra 10]

Just don't dumb it down too much.Right now in MP you get kills and get killed yourself.The AI keeps you on your toes at all times and most of my deaths are when I stop trying to survive and start playing a game.If I run past an enemy at close range I want to be dead plain and simple.Not I. As a designer of a bad visibility map, I was quite happy to hear the ai yell "all go prone" "Unknown man front close" wait a bit then as I turn my weapon to face them get capped in the faceIf I get a kill and see bullet impacts all around me and I keep firing I want to be dead.If enemy is firing on my position and I peek out to look I want a chance to be dead.It has always been that way?With AI the way it is right now I find myself actually getting suppressed because I know they are firing accurately on my position and a slight peek out can be a death sentence.Are they actually suppressing you or are they waiting till you poke your head out to so they can blow it off? two different things

Yes but is the cause of your death, because you screwed up? OR They simply know about your position (cheatwise)? A2 ai can keep you on your toes when used with the proper mods without the need for them to cheat. Note no one is asking for dumbing down, just "realistic" gameplay. As it stands the ai doesnt behave like humans they behave like ai gaming. The ai doesnt behave like a military unit and and overcome you tactically, they simply ignore most of your shots and shoot accurately.

Note you were very vague. Right now in MP? Which mp mode? Organized coop ala Zeus? Public coop wasteland's ai aka Domi and dayz have a baby. or Domi aka annex and whatever aka lol ai.

Its sort of like saying that the ak insurgent who shoots pilots out of Apaches/hinds/mi8 keeps you on your toes. No it doesnt. Its just artificial bull that a mission maker strives to overcome with proper balancing of forces.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Masharra

[Wolfstriked 11]

Domi is what I play with occasional PVP.For realistic tactics to occur the AI need a huge change plain and simple and I doubt it will happen.And also I feel that running away from AI and then sneaking up on them to get the kill is basically the reverse of them knowing your general location and following you even though you are hidden and there is no way possible they could of followed you.So I change my gameplay to adapt to the point and click of current AI.

And again do not make them so they rarely hit you as that is just boring as hell and is not good for the game.Easy deaths=immersion IMO.