Balancing?

[froggyluv 2136]

@ChrisB video: What really strikes me about that AI is how they have basically dug into one defensive spot and maintain their position there with different units covering different arcs. In Arma 3 I haven't seen to many cases of AI really holding their cover even if its just the best place to be. Hopefully the Arma3 AI Balance team will observe and assimilate.

[Mirudes 1]

ArmA was never symetrically balanced. Even the main military branches were always made different. On one side you may have a multipurpose attack helicopter, capable to carry 6 soldiers, but it's counterpart is a small attack helicopter. The T-90 was generally weaker then its counterpart but in the cold war era the ratio was 3 T-90s against 2 Abrams. You will get the idea - the game-balance is made by the mission designers.

The player must take advantage of its strengths. The player must find the weakness of the opponent and turn this to his advantage. Use your brain and build a strategy. The player have to communicate with other online players and work together. TOGETHER.

In ArmA2 (and in reality) we often had asymmetric conflicts. But in Arma3, both of the new opponents have enough economy power to buy expensive systems, they have superior communications and so both fractions are equal equipped. One could say, balancing the game was never so easy.

[Curry 10]

Many devs have said the game is combined arms focused, not infantry focused.

You are of course right. Sorry, I meant that for me it is an infantry simulator because well that's what is simulates the best and with a realism mod like ACE it's as close as you can get to an inf sim these days. For me all the other aspects of warfare in A3 like tanks, boats, ships, artillery, transport vehicles, helicopters and jets are just there to support the fundamental aspect of the game - the infantry fight.

If I need a tank sim I play Steel Beasts. That's as close you can get to a tank sim. If I want a Fighter Jet Simulator I play Falcon 4.0 with BMS 4.32. That's as close to an F-16 sim as you can get. I guess you get my point.

[chortles 263]

In ArmA2 (and in reality) we often had asymmetric conflicts. But in Arma3, both of the new opponents have enough economy power to buy expensive systems, they have superior communications and so both fractions are equal equipped. One could say, balancing the game was never so easy.

And going by Gaia's Gamescom 2012 remarks, this seems wholy intentional to have the " high tech" OPFOR... thankfully.

[progamer 14]

You are of course right. Sorry, I meant that for me it is an infantry simulator because well that's what is simulates the best and with a realism mod like ACE it's as close as you can get to an inf sim these days. For me all the other aspects of warfare in A3 like tanks, boats, ships, artillery, transport vehicles, helicopters and jets are just there to support the fundamental aspect of the game - the infantry fight.

If I need a tank sim I play Steel Beasts. That's as close you can get to a tank sim. If I want a Fighter Jet Simulator I play Falcon 4.0 with BMS 4.32. That's as close to an F-16 sim as you can get. I guess you get my point.

But flight sims lack a detailed map with no potential for ground combat if you crash or bailout, while tank sims do not let you ride in a helicopter telling your tank driving teammates on the ground were the enemy is. If it was pure infantry simulation it would be like ACE, but it is not, though various aspects are improved upon like helicopter are eventually getting the TOH helicopters model, while future Arma games may contain destruction like Take On Mars has.

Personally I'd like BIS to make Take On Tanks, Take On Jets, and possibly Take On Boats that they could then use the knowledge and code generated by those games to enhance the combine Arms experience.

---------- Post added at 03:37 ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 ----------

ArmA was never symetrically balanced. Even the main military branches were always made different. On one side you may have a multipurpose attack helicopter, capable to carry 6 soldiers, but it's counterpart is a small attack helicopter. The T-90 was generally weaker then its counterpart but in the cold war era the ratio was 3 T-90s against 2 Abrams. You will get the idea - the game-balance is made by the mission designers.

The player must take advantage of its strengths. The player must find the weakness of the opponent and turn this to his advantage. Use your brain and build a strategy. The player have to communicate with other online players and work together. TOGETHER.

In ArmA2 (and in reality) we often had asymmetric conflicts. But in Arma3, both of the new opponents have enough economy power to buy expensive systems, they have superior communications and so both fractions are equal equipped. One could say, balancing the game was never so easy.

Both sides may have similar tech, but military's in real life do not constantly do the same thing. One military for example may work on better UAV's aided my more advanced helicopter and jets to help other units navigate around and better flank the enemy while another military may heavily research subs, boats and ground based weapons systems which enhanced aircraft to back them up.

Military's do not mirror each other, they try to out due the other side with weapons and technology they think will help rather than what the enemy is using.

[chortles 263]

though various aspects are improved upon like helicopter are eventually getting the TOH helicopters model, while future Arma games may contain destruction like Take On Mars has.

Two things:

#1: DnA really walked-back the whole TOH flight model thing before the public alpha release, to the point where at full release the BI stock helicopters may not (and may not ever) have the TOH flight model, though it may be available for helicopter addon makers.

#2: Take On Mars is not a Real Virtuality game like Take On Helicopters was, so it's not indicative of what's possible in the Arma 3 engine (RV4), although of course that's not impossible for "Arma 4" devs to implement... it just wouldn't be directly a carry-over from TOM.

[progamer 14]

Two things:

#1: DnA really walked-back the whole TOH flight model thing before the public alpha release, to the point where at full release the BI stock helicopters may not (and may not ever) have the TOH flight model, though it may be available for helicopter addon makers.

#2: Take On Mars is not a Real Virtuality game like Take On Helicopters was, so it's not indicative of what's possible in the Arma 3 engine (RV4), although of course that's not impossible for "Arma 4" devs to implement... it just wouldn't be directly a carry-over from TOM.

I was saying that they get better at various aspects of the game from other games they make, I never said any of this was for before release either. The damage from Take On Mars gave them new knowledge that could potentially help a future Arma become better. Take on Mars and Take On Helicopters feature and editor which was an idea from the Arma series which made the Take On series better, why not vice versus with other features?

[Wolfstriked 11]

All I can do is hope that by balance there is not more of what is evident in the recoil of the MXSW.Its much worse then the MX or MXC and I wonder if its that way to "balance" the fact that it holds 3 times the ammo.

[Reuben5150 2]

But flight sims lack a detailed map with no potential for ground combat if you crash or bailout, while tank sims do not let you ride in a helicopter telling your tank driving teammates on the ground.

That's why I liked the old bf games, but that is an old memory best forgotten.

---------- Post added at 02:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

I was looking at the feedback tracker and I saw multiple posts on balancing weapon and vehicles, how weapons like rockets and grenades take no skill and need nerfs.

I am at a loss for words right now, people need to understand this is a Militery simulator! This should be very clear to people. If anything, things could become more realistic.

Noobs that don't understand the concept of ARMA, I would be concerned when they start to implement things such as vehicle auto repair, self heal, auto spot, audio spot even, mini map, unlimited vehicle weapon ammo, kill cam and removal of enemy footsteps, did I miss something ? Probably and you know which other game I refer to, commercial BS fit for console only.

[Mac 1]

The balancing in ARMA has never been about nerfing weapons and changing real life characteristics. Balancing/Unbalancing is the responsibility of the mission maker.

[daveallen10 35]

In my opinion sniper weapons need to be nerfed otherwise this game is going to turn into a camping sniperfest.

I agree with you 100%. It seems like in every wasteland game, everyone rushes to get the 12x scope or a sniper and then camps the gun stores. Its getting ridiculous to the point that non-scoped weapons are virtually useless.

Sure, in real life scopes are highly used and battles take place over long-range, but I think more realism is needed here to make long-range sharpshooting more difficult so that more people might opt for medium to short range rifles without scopes. Those who are more patient and have better practice should use long-range scopes and snipers, but not everyone. A healthy balance.

[Zacho 0]

The balancing in ARMA has never been about nerfing weapons and changing real life characteristics. Balancing/Unbalancing is the responsibility of the mission maker.

Could not agree more! I hope BIS thinks a bit more about some of the odd changes they seem to be doing.

[chortles 263]

I agree with you 100%. It seems like in every wasteland game, everyone rushes to get the 12x scope or a sniper and then camps the gun stores. Its getting ridiculous to the point that non-scoped weapons are virtually useless.

Sure, in real life scopes are highly used and battles take place over long-range, but I think more realism is needed here to make long-range sharpshooting more difficult so that more people might opt for medium to short range rifles without scopes. Those who are more patient and have better practice should use long-range scopes and snipers, but not everyone. A healthy balance.

One thing I've learned from other shooters: N00bs will go for AMRs/highest-magnification scopes no matter how "gimped" or "realistic" they're simulated or even how good they are at using them, simply because "big caliber sniper rifle" is like light to moths... they're immune to attempts to 'deter' them.

By the way, for the complainers about pettka's explanation re: AI -- take a look at the June 17 dev branch changelog... there's an entry about AI adjusting for long range shooting.

[pettka 694]

By the way, for the complainers about pettka's explanation re: AI -- take a look at the June 17 dev branch changelog... there's an entry about AI adjusting for long range shooting.

Thanks a lot for mentioning that, we have made some serious adjustments in this way after seeing the reaction from community. The real values may be now correctly set without breaking the desired AI balance (read: they would eventually hit you even on 1000 meters) thanks to joined effort of our lead programmer. We expect many issues risen by players being shoot by AI at long range as shooting at such ranges would be a bit more complicated thanks to more realistic friction :icon_twisted:

[metalcraze 290]

That's pretty reassuring. Now just add windage for players (and increased dispersion for AI the higher the wind to counter-balance that) and you've just made sniper rifles not the ultimate weapon of doom but another tool designed for its own role.

[chortles 263]

pettka, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "some serious adjustments in this way"?

metalcraze, the reason I brought it up was because people were complaining about the idea, although pettka said that what that one dev said was right "for now" (implying WIP, no matter how much you didn't like it) because there was a desired 'state' -- "desired AI balance" here -- and the "weapon balancing" was a workaround meant to reach that state, in lieu of a "proper" method (correcting the AI)... which it seems was finally achieved... it appears that Suma is not the only competent AI programmer at BI, unlike what metalcraze seems to believe. :p

[Alwarren 2767]

That's pretty reassuring. Now just add windage for players (and increased dispersion for AI the higher the wind to counter-balance that) and you've just made sniper rifles not the ultimate weapon of doom but another tool designed for its own role.

Indeed, I am happy to see that player feedback from your community is actually taken into account :)

[chortles 263]

That is to say, no matter how many of you didn't like the chosen workaround, they didn't lose sight that they were making a video game... or that everything about this is WIP as hell, probably including said AI capability.

Thank gosh for devs that get it... and thank gosh for Jay Crowe, and thank gosh for pettka, and thank gosh for whoever decided to have a "gameplay balance designer".

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

There's something amusing about how at one point this thread seemed to be about complaining that the devs were listening to players alright, just not those that you wanted them to listen to...

[Alwarren 2767]

metalcraze, the reason I brought it up was because people were complaining about the idea, although pettka said that what that one dev said was right "for now" (implying WIP, no matter how much you didn't like it)

Er, sorry, but "for now" means nothing at all. It just hints at something that might or might not be changed later, or not at all.

I take issue with the term "complainers". As I said before, the Alpha (at least how I understood it) was explicitly done this way to collect feedback. So calling those that provide feedback "complainers" (or as some others put it, "whining" or "bleating") is ignoring the fact that this input has something to say - namely that there is a sufficient number of people that are not happy with it. I am really getting a bit annoyed by the "It's an alpha" or other, synonymous expressions. Yes, it is an alpha, but why should one not say his opinion on it? Once the game is final, it's too late.

[progamer 14]

I agree with you 100%. It seems like in every wasteland game, everyone rushes to get the 12x scope or a sniper and then camps the gun stores. Its getting ridiculous to the point that non-scoped weapons are virtually useless.

Sure, in real life scopes are highly used and battles take place over long-range, but I think more realism is needed here to make long-range sharpshooting more difficult so that more people might opt for medium to short range rifles without scopes. Those who are more patient and have better practice should use long-range scopes and snipers, but not everyone. A healthy balance.

Then modify the mission yourself or ask the wasteland mission maker to do it if you don't want to host your edited mission. You know there a bullet wind interact script made by a well known member of community! The devs to do not change things to make a specific mission better or for Arcadish balance. If you have concerns about the mission, talk to the mission maker or make your own!

[chortles 263]

Plus it is kind of in vain to try and deter the shinies from swarming to AMRs... again, irrespective if they're any good at using them, or even if AMRs are any good within the game rules, it's going to happen.

Er, sorry, but "for now" means nothing at all. It just hints at something that might or might not be changed later, or not at all.

I took a look at pettka's initial response, which said "right for time being, but we are still developing and enhancing the game :icon_twisted:" even with no ETA, I never took it as what was meant for final release, just "this is the current situation".

I take issue with the term "complainers". As I said before, the Alpha (at least how I understood it) was explicitly done this way to collect feedback. So calling those that provide feedback "complainers" (or as some others put it, "whining" or "bleating") is ignoring the fact that this input has something to say - namely that there is a sufficient number of people that are not happy with it. I am really getting a bit annoyed by the "It's an alpha" or other, synonymous expressions. Yes, it is an alpha, but why should one not say his opinion on it? Once the game is final, it's too late.

Oh, you can say your opinion... but what I saw was the thread degenerating into the old griping about casuals, sniping at dev competence (in particular at Jay Crowe), tone-deaf pleading (this was admittedly hilarious) and just a dissonance seeming inability to comprehend that the devs might have a different idea of what they're supposed to be doing and basically repeating some of the same themes that I've heard on these boards ever since DayZ went big and obviously had an affect on BI.

pettka, I have a better question for you: The reason I ask this is because it sounds like the AI deficiency you described before was the cause of this controversial original 'balance change', but also because it sounds like a prerequisite to undoing/changing that 'balance change' -- that is, doing something first instead of just arbitrarily changing it without regard for the AI because "GM6 has slower-than-real-life ROF" breaks some people's immersion so they don't like your fix :rolleyes: -- was to finally "fix the AI"... so how can we see that you've "achieved the desired state" as far as the AI goes? How can we test the claimed AI changes? It seems that one of the de facto prerequisites of getting a ticket looked at and even fixed is a repro... so if you could return the favor, how can we "repro" the fixes mentioned in the June 17th changelog and compare them against the prior situation? ;)

Come to think of it, pettka, I imagine that "AI is now better able to adjust shots at longer distances" means that they are better at zeroing beyond 800 meters* (the specific range that was mentioned earlier) but I am requesting more clarification of what "AI is better in choice of weapons" actually is supposed to mean -- what observable behavior difference are we supposed to be seeing??

* Admittedly I don't believe that it was coincidental that 800 meters is also the maximum zero distance on the iron sights for the long guns that came with the initial public alpha release...

Edited June 18, 2013 by Chortles

[Anachoretes 10]

(I think)"Choice" meant correlation between fireing range and weapon class.

[chortles 263]

The problem being that that changelog item "fix" is too vaguely described for me to simply think "snipers no longer pulling out pistols outside of CQB."

[Anachoretes 10]

Yes, it was diffuse pointing. But enough for unbiased testing.

[chortles 263]

Again, I'm essentially asking, "pettka, how can we repro your fix"...