Balancing?

[blu3sman 11]

The ability to by pressing a key to shut the other eye would be very realistic

chant the mantra "keep it real" :)

You have only one eye ingame - the camera (unless using stereo). Peripheral vision has nothing to do with both eyes open. It's normal to have clear vision around the scope using one eye.

This have been covered here on forums hundreds of times.

[jgaz-uk 132]

You have only one eye ingame - the camera (unless using stereo). Peripheral vision has nothing to do with both eyes open. It's normal to have clear vision around the scope using one eye.

This have been covered here on forums hundreds of times.

4x magnification yes but not the 20x serious stuff, what's on the outside of the scope when taking the shot is irrelevant. Use the rubber sir

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1520/sniper1p.png (895 kB)

will have to wait & see whats in the Beta, nuf said

[chortles 263]

Of course there should be some variation between different factions equipment but their effectiveness should be virtually the same. eg lets say BluFor has a more powerful tank which moves and fires more slowly while OpFor have a slightly lighter tank fires and moves slightly faster but they are both still heavy tank class with weapon damage and armor about the same.

Based on pettka's comments there is intended dissimilarity and that will increase as time goes on:

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:

Make of that what you will, but as far as the intent... yeah, it isn't factional "mirroring" as far as vehicles go, there was smoke but no fire. :)

Sorry I have not read the last few pages so excuse me if I am missing something but I have to put this out there. If you want perfectly balanced PvP battles (and are willing to sacrifice realism for it) what is so bad about simply giving teams the same weapons. This will give you the perfect balance you want will it not? If you want both sides to have weapons with the same stats, what is the need to have them with different skins as well?

... yeah, you did miss a bunch; the dev comments seem to be a good summation of what was going on, but the above quote from pettka is more representative of what the official stance is on force structure, while he's said that "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:"

Also, from another dev:

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.

And from RiE:

To add to this, as I've said before, the number and types of weapons and vehicles in Arma ballooned over the years without necessarily careful thought about the values in the configs or how the AI might use them. This has a big impact on gameplay, the perception of the AI and the game as a whole. The work - which, as I've said before, should have started long ago - to get a hold of these values has begun under the guidance of devs like Luca and Pettka.

Hope that this summarizes. :)

Now, regarding the whole sniper scope thing:

4x magnification yes but not the 20x serious stuff, what's on the outside of the scope when taking the shot is irrelevant. Use the rubber sir

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1520/sniper1p.png (895 kB)

will have to wait & see whats in the Beta, nuf said

... you mean the "rubber" that's seemingly not on the SOS? Based on these two right-side screenshots and these two first-person screenshots, the SOS (I don't know what real-world optic it might be) doesn't have that... and in any case, if my first linked screenshot (and

right before the reload animation begins) is representative, the character model's eye seems to be a noticeable distance rear of the scope anyway!

[metalcraze 290]

Based on pettka's comments [...] Balancing, as we use the term, it is mainly working on AI and making them in par with players :icon_twisted:"

That seems strange they need a whole team to balance only AI, considering that the most glaring issues with it - like extremely slow reactions - aren't even looked into and for "balancing AI" you usually have beta testers playing missions vs AI over and over again.

Coupled with the job description clearly saying "Balancing parameters of AI, weapons, vehicles and other gameplay factors" - it sounds like some damage control is going on in this thread :D

And this is how AI is being worked on?

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot

Sorry but it is not the right solution.

Wait what? Is this for real? So instead of fixing AI they just gimp weapons for players?

EDIT:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8656

This is by design different in game than in real life, because of balancing issues this works as intended.

They slowed down GM6 fire rate by 2.5 times

Semi-auto weapon that is that slow - this makes no sense at all. What are you doing with ArmA BIS? How is this "balancing AI to be on par with the player" by making OPFOR's GM6 mirror BLUFOR's M320?

Edited June 8, 2013 by metalcraze

[danil-ch 165]

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot :icon_twisted:

This change is pointless. Even now AI is incapable to confront player at long distances. Devs should give AI ability to use smoke instead of making player less threatening to AI.

They slowed down GM6 fire rate by 2.5 times

Semi-auto weapon that is that slow - this makes no sense at all. What are you doing with ArmA BIS? How is this "balancing AI to be on par with the player" by making OPFOR's GM6 mirror BLUFOR's M320?

What worse that the is no point to keep GM6 in game now. They may just armed OPFOR with M320 and no one notice.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Danil-ch

[KingChubbles 1]

This step away from real data has been done on purpose for gameplay sake - AI snipers weren't able to shoot at distances longer than 800 meters reliably, they didn't take zeroing that far into account. This would make player extremely overpowered at distances around a kilometre, where player is safe and still deadly with the rifle thanks to better zeroing skills. And nobody wants AI just sitting like ducks and waiting to be shot

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

[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 :)