Balancing?

[Reuben5150 2]

Is this a joke? I mean, seriously BIS? Isn't it sad that pistols in games like Battlefield are more realistic than in Arma? I thought this was a realistic game....

Why are pistols so awfully underpowered?!

Ironic since this is a MILSIM, but I would suggest all future testing is done in pure ARMA

[chortles 263]

See my sig, Reuben5150, right from a dev... but I'll agree that all future testing should be done in vanilla Arma, considering that it seems that the whole point of a "balancing?" thread is WRT unmodded Arma.

[D_wolf 1]

Balancing? This is Arma not Battlefield.

Arma should be as closer to real life as possible.

[chortles 263]

Oh joy it's yet someone else who reflexively ignores what people have said about how balance exists in real life, you simply have to differentiate between artificial balancing and "natural balance" that stems from realistic simulation... :rolleyes:

By the way, heads up, from today's changelog:

• Added parachutes to light helicopters
  
• Cargo of light helicopters is now able to eject and paradrop (the latter if they take parachute bags first)
  
• Weapons of CH-49 cargo no longer stick out of the roof
  
• Tweaked hit points of the CH-49 Mohawk
  
• Parachuting soldiers aren’t sad anymore
  
• Tweaked basic setting of the direction of grenade throws
  
• Changed magazine for Green faction pistol in equipment

• Aiming of the ACP-C2 has been adjusted
  
• ACP-C2 uses .45 magazines
  
• Improved ASRAAM behavior
  
• Tweaked recoils for Scorpion and Vermin

I just took a look myself, and the ACP-C2 on dev build now is described as "ACP-C2 .45" and uses a nine (9) round magazine of .45 ACP (or so it claims anyway). No idea if they made any change to the magazine model, but here's what that looks like now.

The Vermin has also been renamed to "Vermin SMG .45 ACP" and now uses ".45 ACP 30Rnd Vermin Mag" (as described elsewhere, this is not impossible).

Edited June 28, 2013 by Chortles

[sqb-sma 66]

Oh joy it's yet someone else who reflexively ignores what people have said about how balance exists in real life, you simply have to differentiate between artificial balancing and "natural balance" that stems from realistic simulation... :rolleyes:

By the way, heads up, from today's changelog:I just took a look myself, and the ACP-C2 on dev build now is described as "ACP-C2 .45" and uses a nine (9) round magazine of .45 ACP (or so it claims anyway). No idea if they made any change to the magazine model, but here's what that looks like now.

The Vermin has also been renamed to "Vermin SMG .45 ACP" and now uses ".45 ACP 30Rnd Vermin Mag" (as described elsewhere, this is not impossible).

Huzzah, and the .45 ACP pistol is fantastic. I much prefer having that firepower over the larger mag sizes of the 9mm pistols.

[TSAndrey 1]

Balancing? This is Arma not Battlefield.

Arma should be as closer to real life as possible.

So that means that they cannot balance things to be closer to real life?

[gossamersolid 155]

So that means that they cannot balance things to be closer to real life?

I don't think you know what the word balance means (in this context).

[TSAndrey 1]

I don't think you know what the word balance means (in this context).

I'm saying that even though this is an simulator, things can still get balanced. Pistol are for example, underpowered.

[chortles 263]

Mind you, thusfar every pistol is 9 mm; only on dev branch has the ACP-C2 been changed to .45 ACP.

[Deadfast 43]

Not to even mention that if you're going to test damage by shooting at friendlies, make sure extended armor is off. And that the mission you're testing doesn't use handleDamage EH. Better yet, just make your own and shoot at the opposing side.

[Anachoretes 10]

Pistol are for example, underpowered.

Show examples of that. Pistols kill from one shot in the head, in the chest.

[TSAndrey 1]

Show examples of that. Pistols kill from one shot in the head, in the chest.

Yes, one shoot in the head. In the chest, you need 3-4 shoots. If you aim at other body parts, it takes even more. The recoil is just too high and the damage doesn't compensate for that.

[chortles 263]

Have you experimented with the dev build version of the ACP-C2 (the one in .45 ACP) using the parameters Deadfast advised?

[Variable 322]

Yes, one shoot in the head. In the chest, you need 3-4 shoots. If you aim at other body parts, it takes even more. The recoil is just too high and the damage doesn't compensate for that.

This is correct. That's why pistol training will tell you to not stop shooting until the target drops to the ground.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Variable

[becubed 24]

Yes, one shoot in the head. In the chest, you need 3-4 shoots. If you aim at other body parts, it takes even more. The recoil is just too high and the damage doesn't compensate for that.

Sounds OK to me. It's why you end up with this, and that would have been using hollowpoints rather than ball ammo.

[Dark6-6 10]

Or the woman who shot a home invader 5 times who managed to drive away....and those people weren't wearing body armor.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[M2rine 10]

Quick question. Why NLAW, which is in real live guided, is now considered unguided just because OPFOR RPG was changed to unguided?

[-Coulum- 35]

Pistols damages are about as good as is possible with the very limited hitpoint system we have. A shot to the torso will not physically incapacitate a target instantly. Even a shot to the heart will give the victim up to 15 seconds of brain function (albeit rapidly deteriorating function).

Now the psychological response to getting shot in the torso may give you instant neutralization of the target - but that really isn't possible to recreate realistically with such a basic hitpoint system - because that is largely random and still not necessarily instant.

Regarding balancing of weapons and assets, although I am a realism guy, I don't much care if both factions have mirrored weaponry (I would prefer not of course). My main concern is not whether weapons are mirrored or not but rather that they have realistic capabilities and functionality.

Ie. I don't mind if the opfor and blufor machine-gun function exactly the same way, as long as they function how a machine-gun would function in reality (have weight, realistic loading time, recoil, ease of aim etc.)

btw are there going to be heavy machine-guns (or am I blind and we already have them)?

[chortles 263]

Define "heavy"? Seeing as right now the Zafir means exclusive OPFOR/CSAT access to 7.62 mm and thus what we might consider a GPMG, while both BLUFOR/NATO and Green Army/AAF in dev branch only have 6.5 mm LMGs... (There are currently no 5.56 x 45 mm SAWs/LMGs in Arma 3.)

[Reuben5150 2]

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.

Edit:

Since this post has become really popular I will link these two tickets for making the game better:

Flooding land Like Arma 2 ACR: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9834

Make helicopter interact with water more realistically: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8468

Interesting to see a job opening for a game balance designer, thats good, I think it's wrong to disregard all aspects of balance for the sake of realism, after all it's still just a game, just a more realistic one.

[Phantom Six 25]

Interesting to see a job opening for a game balance designer, thats good, I think it's wrong to disregard all aspects of balance for the sake of realism, after all it's still just a game, just a more realistic one.

I honestly believe that balance should be in the hand of the mission designer, not have a mirror image of BLUFOR and OPFOR. ARMA isn't just "some game". There's already a lot of "those games" around that mirrors COD. If OPFOR and BLUFOR equipments are of the exact same functions, then what's the point? Actually, I wouldn't consider carrying 200 kg of items and being able to sprint with that realistic. There's other things that can use fixing like AIs and such than just "balancing the game" since it looks more like "mirroring factions" to me. Scenarios wouldn't be as interesting with everything being just mirror version of another gun and same goes for vehicles. So let say if BLUFOR has a faster, lighter tank, OPFOR has a heavier, slower tank, that'd be fine. Now if BLUFOR and OPFOR have the same kind of tank but different skin, that wouldn't be so interesting. This isn't battlefield so no need to throw the realism out the window for some "E-Sport funfest/gunfest" for balance; this is ARMA.

Quick question. Why NLAW, which is in real live guided, is now considered unguided just because OPFOR RPG was changed to unguided?

That I find would be a problem with "balance".

[eymerich 11]

Pistols damages are about as good as is possible with the very limited hitpoint system we have. A shot to the torso will not physically incapacitate a target instantly. Even a shot to the heart will give the victim up to 15 seconds of brain function (albeit rapidly deteriorating function).

Nice.. didn't know that...

just the time to sign a will

[Reuben5150 2]

I honestly believe that balance should be in the hand of the mission designer, not have a mirror image of BLUFOR and OPFOR. ARMA isn't just "some game". There's already a lot of "those games" around that mirrors COD.".

Why do people assume when talking about balance in arma its only about nerfing/buffing weapons and mirroring sides, there's a little more to it than that.

And judging by whats running on the servers right now the mission designers are pretty clueless, even with basic stuff.

[progamer 14]

Why do people assume when talking about balance in arma its only about nerfing/buffing weapons and mirroring sides, there's a little more to it than that.

And judging by whats running on the servers right now the mission designers are pretty clueless, even with basic stuff.

The devs believe in natural balance in the sense that if you add tanks, javelin launcher and other at launcher are added and vice versa and unfortunately at times because of AI.

Think of the beta as practice for the mission developers because missions will improve over time.

[progamer 14]

I found this from an interview and thought i would put it in the appropriate thread:

"AI and weapons balancing are not yet final. Karel Morický explained to the fact that the opponents are often still too powerful, which is indeed due to the realism of high-tech weapons, but does not lead to a satisfactory balance for the player. The optimization of strength of arms, ballistics and the AI ​​is therefore high on the to-do list for the programming. Karel Morický explains, "The previous community feedback shows two extremes one hand there are the players who speak out for the highest possible degree of realism in the game..

You have no problem to invest several hours in order to position their sniper perfect, then leave a shot that ends the mission. On the other hand, there are many players who want to experience the purest action fireworks after a few seconds like a mission, with as much bombast. We believe that the middle ground is the best option. We try to use graphics and effects to give the player more the feeling of being in the middle of an action-packed battle without sacrificing our commitment to realistic as possible gameplay. This requires a careful optimization and should be fun in the end. "

From: http://www.pcgames.de/Arma-3-PC-236876/News/Arma-3-Vorschau-Teil-1-Szenarien-KI-Missionen-1081313/

I used google to translate it, and also the video shows some awesome new content!.

---------- Post added at 02:01 ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 ----------

I found this from an interview and thought i would put it in the appropriate thread:

"AI and weapons balancing are not yet final. Karel Morický explained to the fact that the opponents are often still too powerful, which is indeed due to the realism of high-tech weapons, but does not lead to a satisfactory balance for the player. The optimization of strength of arms, ballistics and the AI ​​is therefore high on the to-do list for the programming. Karel Morický explains, "The previous community feedback shows two extremes one hand there are the players who speak out for the highest possible degree of realism in the game..

You have no problem to invest several hours in order to position their sniper perfect, then leave a shot that ends the mission. On the other hand, there are many players who want to experience the purest action fireworks after a few seconds like a mission, with as much bombast. We believe that the middle ground is the best option. We try to use graphics and effects to give the player more the feeling of being in the middle of an action-packed battle without sacrificing our commitment to realistic as possible gameplay. This requires a careful optimization and should be fun in the end. "

From: http://www.pcgames.de/Arma-3-PC-236876/News/Arma-3-Vorschau-Teil-1-Szenarien-KI-Missionen-1081313/

I used google to translate it, and also the video shows some awesome new content!.

Is the dev talking about player vs AI or player vs player or both?