Balancing?

[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"...

[Anachoretes 10]

Yes, but I'm not saying that he did not respond. :rolleyes:

[pettka 694]

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...

Well, there is actually no way to reproduce it now. The fix is partially in engine itself and part of the fix lies in game data - the values for friction won't fix themselves without changes in addons. That means you have to wait a while for dev branch data update scheduled soon-ish as pre-beta. For more intel on the update topic, wait for promised SITREP by Master lord Joris himself :icon_twisted:

As soon as there is the data, the repro is pretty straightforward - put yourself as a sniper 1000 meters away from enemy sniper and spotter team (AI always works better in teams), reveal yourself by shooting at them and watch for incoming fire. You are now dead, thank you for using suicide booths :icon_twisted:

As for the second part, about choice of weapons, there were several issues of AI using grenades to spot enemies far away and such things, making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all. It is possible and expected that the fix would solve some more problems in this area. This issue was found by our new TFB member, who found a reliable repro and helped programmers a lot by doing so. Not bad after a week in new work, I would say :icon_twisted:

[Alwarren 2767]

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.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".

Let me give you an example. There's a couple of issues that are, let's say, interesting that I haven't seen mentioned. For example, the absence of a gear dialog in the briefing. I suppose this is because the inventory was/is experimental/WIP, but without a confirmation, right now, there isn't any gear dialog in the briefing. Will that stay? I certainly hope not. But there is no confirmation, and the "known issues" page is vague on such detail.

Oh, you can say your opinion...

Wow... thank you XD

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.

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

[chortles 263]

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction... and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well.

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction... and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well... admittedly a bunch of it left me thinking "how the hell could you even think to ask devs to do something when you seem to believe them so incapable of doing so?"

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Well, there is actually no way to reproduce it now. The fix is partially in engine itself and part of the fix lies in game data - the values for friction won't fix themselves without changes in addons. That means you have to wait a while for dev branch data update scheduled soon-ish as pre-beta. For more intel on the update topic, wait for promised SITREP by Master lord Joris himself :icon_twisted:

Would these "values for friction" happen to be air friction for the .408 and 12.7 mm rounds?

As soon as there is the data, the repro is pretty straightforward - put yourself as a sniper 1000 meters away from enemy sniper and spotter team (AI always works better in teams), reveal yourself by shooting at them and watch for incoming fire. You are now dead, thank you for using suicide booths :icon_twisted:

Any other distances? This is important, considering that we've got an "out to 2.3 km" scope here. ;) And considering what I said about the particular 800 m distance cited before...

As for the second part, about choice of weapons, there were several issues of AI using grenades to spot enemies far away and such things, making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all. It is possible and expected that the fix would solve some more problems in this area. This issue was found by our new TFB member, who found a reliable repro and helped programmers a lot by doing so. Not bad after a week in new work, I would say :icon_twisted:

What do you mean "using grenades to spot enemies far away", unless you mean AI attempting to use grenades against enemies well out of hand-grenade-throw range?

Also, "making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all" is really strange to be reading about, since players' grenade use doesn't work that way unless equipping UGLs.

[Alwarren 2767]

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction...

He certainly was the one that was talking the most on the E3 interviews. Unfortunately, the general tendency is to shoot the messenger.

and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well.

I had an incident where my face was photoshopped into gay porn and circulated because I work as a developer for a company active in a small hobbyist market that tends to take certain things too serious, so I know how that is. Also had death threads, although I never took any of those serious (since they came from a guy posing as an 18th century samurai).

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Some things are better ignored (like this one post I recently read about how "Crysis II is so much better than Arma". However, the "issue" with Arma is the specific appeal that it has for a specific audience. While I can understand the desire to reach out to more customers, some people (including myself) feel strongly about these specific appeals. I would personally not abandon the Arma series for the simple reason that there is nothing that compares to it, it is a positively unique experience that you will never get in this form in any other game on the market. Which is the reason why people tend to react strongly to changes they perceive as a wrong turn of events. I can see that for the developers this means trying to balance (not as the title of the tread) certain changes against the move towards "accessibility". But having seen a good number of series like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell go down the drain (probably with the best intention), it's difficult NOT to be alarmed, especially since the "accessibility" has been stressed so many times. There are still a number of issues (like the movement speeds, and the first aid system) that are a bit too accessible for my taste. And as long as these things persist, I will continue to complain. Because, as I said before, this is Alpha/Beta, and once Final is out it might be too late.

[Variable 322]

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:

That's great news, thanks for considering the community concerns. As someone put that nicely - Keep the faith BIS.

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

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...

We are glad you are amused. There are players who'd like BIS to live up to its promise, especially due to the lack of any alternative for the Arma franchise. So there's nothing wrong to request BIS to lend an ear for that part of the community, other than the other parts, who want the game to take a different path. There's no point in listening to all players, so I don't see how this sentence of yours is constructive.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Variable