Balancing?

[Masharra 10]

The ai currently uses quite realistic strats in arma 2 so Im not sure about huge change as much as taking the time to change them. Disengaging from combat and engaging from a more advantageous position is a well used tactic. Feints to draw enemy charges followed by smoke cover to conceal flanking movements.

I must say most engagements arent about dead accuracy but fire supremacy followed by superior movement to kill the targets. This "game" everyone kills way too easily

[-Coulum- 35]

The ai currently uses quite realistic strats in arma 2 so Im not sure about huge change as much as taking the time to change them. Disengaging from combat and engaging from a more advantageous position is a well used tactic. Feints to draw enemy charges followed by smoke cover to conceal flanking movements.

I must say most engagements arent about dead accuracy but fire supremacy followed by superior movement to kill the targets. This "game" everyone kills way too easily

Pretty much.The ai aren't stupid when it comes to squad level decision like route of approach, flanking, retreating etc. But often it never has time to do that because they are dead or the players are dead already. Players die quick because ai have very good default aiming skills and extremely good detection abilities. The Ai die so fast because they can't think well on an individual level and thus are very poor at taking cover and generally staying alive. The overall result is screw maneuvering and fire superiority and make sure every shot is a head shot - hopefully you kill them all before they kill you.

[Masharra 10]

I just had a strange thought. The players are probably the most unrealistic thing about arma. See having been shot at before puts a certain fear in you. I emulate that fear a lot in my gaming sessions. Just today we (CiAhome.net) were playing a mission and we were getting slaughtered. From what I gathered the AI had initiated contact from the east. Fell back when they were fired on by our bmp. Flanked around to the south, disabled said bmp. We reacted by splitting the squad to move to flank the enemy to the south. Unfortunately the ai didnt send everyone to the south so the flanking team fell into a L shaped ambush against aggressors who had a superior fighting position. (NOT GOOD) BMP got repaired and took our ei to the south unfortunately in the time that took enemy reinforcements arrived from the North. We watched them in vain reinforce the east and then watched the east send more to the south. They essentially formed a V-shaped ambush on us and rained hell down on us.

that was about 8-10 humans vs 15-25 ai. Tactical oversight aside, it wasnt accurate fire that killed most of us. It was use of grenades, suppressive fire that managed to hit us, superior movement and wiped us out. We never gained fire superiority, we were looking for accurate kill shots, and we were punished for it. Next time though, we will get those stinking napa bastards. Teach them not to mess with the RHS Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of Win and Green Eyed women.

[Mirudes 1]

It was been said in the discussion about the artificial intelligence that the developers working with customized values for the equipment. In example a slower firerate for the Gepárd GM-6 Lynx rifle. They think that should help to achieve a better balance between the fractions / and players versus AI.

In every thread about the AI is the suggestion given, to use mods to solve the problems with the AI.

Let's say the players are doing this and getting a proper AI. What now?

- Will the (now functioning) AI have conflicts/incompatibilities with the customized values of the equipment?

- The players will still have the unrealistic values for the equipment. What's next? Using ANOTHER mod only for to bring the realistic values back to ArmA3?

Besides that, I don't understand it why BIS isn't even creating a science-fiction rifle with the values they need - nobody would care about that and nobody could discuss a firerate of a non existing heavy sniper rifle out of the year 2035.

[instagoat 133]

The problem with AI mods is that they more often than not screw up any mission that is not designed with them in mind.

I´d rather not have to use any of those. I avoided AI mods for the longest time with Arma 2, and I only started to use them to try and fix up some obvious shortcomings (ie, the AI not rearming themselves or picking up AT launchers from bodies if Armour shows up, etc).

[progamer 14]

It was been said in the discussion about the artificial intelligence that the developers working with customized values for the equipment. In example a slower firerate for the Gepárd GM-6 Lynx rifle. They think that should help to achieve a better balance between the fractions / and players versus AI.

In every thread about the AI is the suggestion given, to use mods to solve the problems with the AI.

Let's say the players are doing this and getting a proper AI. What now?

- Will the (now functioning) AI have conflicts/incompatibilities with the customized values of the equipment?

- The players will still have the unrealistic values for the equipment. What's next? Using ANOTHER mod only for to bring the realistic values back to ArmA3?

Besides that, I don't understand it why BIS isn't even creating a science-fiction rifle with the values they need - nobody would care about that and nobody could discuss a firerate of a non existing heavy sniper rifle out of the year 2035.

The reason why they do not make some sci-fi rifle is because in real life, guns will be more advanced in 2035 but will not shoot lasers. They will be guns that already exist and possibly prototype weapons from 2015 to 2000. This a simulation of war.

Changing values for AI on the other hand makes sense because the only way to give the AI equipment equal to the player would be to make the AI think for itself, have emotions, life experiences, practice and training which is not an easy accomplishment.

[Masharra 10]

The ai can already think for itself, doesnt need training nor life experiences, already has courage values. Changing the fire rate / whatever merely band-aids the supposed problem.

[chrisb 196]

This was taken from a general test of the ai.

I often do random tests if new or updated mod/addons are used.

This is part of a team caught under fire and using the ruin here for cover. They are fighting a lot of enemy forces based in the town just down the hill. The enemy is flanking from both sides, but really here we are concentrating on the side I can see best. I am just a team member not a leader.

It’s the conserving of ammo, using cover, correct stances etc, that really helps ai become believable. This is a very configurable ai.

Do we need mod/addons for ai, well yes, because BIS will never give us ai this good.

Parts from mods here:

GL3/4, SLX, Zeus, TPW_suppress. Only selected parts (pbo’s) from each were used, tested together many times. They will holdup in buildings the same way, firing from doors & windows..

This is why modded is so good it gives the player a choice, use it or don’t, make it the way you want it, its all possible..

I overlaid some info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-jfnAwHses

There would be around 70ai at start, matched here in favour of the enemy, probably 30/40 not sure, was done a little time back. Sorry its only 720, was recorded in 60% or 75% msi, again not sure.

EDIT: Original video:

Video above, now upgraded to 1080, only took at 75% quality though, but its better than the original...

Edited June 13, 2013 by ChrisB
Video upgrade

[dmarkwick 261]

It was been said in the discussion about the artificial intelligence that the developers working with customized values for the equipment. In example a slower firerate for the Gepárd GM-6 Lynx rifle. They think that should help to achieve a better balance between the fractions / and players versus AI.

In every thread about the AI is the suggestion given, to use mods to solve the problems with the AI.

Let's say the players are doing this and getting a proper AI. What now?

- Will the (now functioning) AI have conflicts/incompatibilities with the customized values of the equipment?

- The players will still have the unrealistic values for the equipment. What's next? Using ANOTHER mod only for to bring the realistic values back to ArmA3?

Besides that, I don't understand it why BIS isn't even creating a science-fiction rifle with the values they need - nobody would care about that and nobody could discuss a firerate of a non existing heavy sniper rifle out of the year 2035.

Well, although I am generally not in favour of balancing existing equipments for AI (my posts explain why it's done, not that I agree) I can see why it's done. The things need to work with the AI in missions in vanilla ArmA. As soon as you decide to change something, you cannot complain that it then bends something else out of shape. Yes, if you bend something , you might have to bend something else to compensate :) that's always been the nature of it though.

On the whole though, unless they break missions, these things are hardly ever seen. So when you see this sort of balancing going on, you just have to remember that it's the game as delivered is the product that has to work right, with the game missions in mind.

[metalcraze 290]

The rate of fire settings for AI and weapon itself are separate in the same config.

So I'm not buying this one.

This whole "we balance the game for AI" while AI has zero improvements vs. ArmA2 AI doesn't sound too convincing.

I mean if they will fix the terrible AI reflexes that prevent AI from facing its target in any reasonable amount of time - won't that break the campaign balance a lot more than changing rate of fire of a weapon for the player (since AI has its own value) - if campaign is balanced with the current AI in mind?

Or if they will fix AI precision and prevent AI from 1 shotting you even at lowest settings? Won't that break the balance since campaign is made with 1 shot kill AI in mind?

And why didn't AI need mirrored sniper rifles before? In OA AI was shooting with taki militia's no-scope rifle just as well as it was with NV+scope M110 within both of those rifles' limits

Edited June 13, 2013 by metalcraze

[Anachoretes 10]

People get few rifles and start talk about balance. Better talk about additions. Changing stage somewhere ahead.

[Curry 10]

ArmA 3 has already gone maintstream, already hired a developer for "balancing". But it doesn't matter for me at all, because a real realism mod (ACE) will fix all this BS making this discussion pointless.

I already hated the "futuristic" setting of ARMA 3 but I bought A3 because of the awesome modding community making this game what it should be. An infrantry simulator. BI just gives the platform for this.

[Maio 293]

ArmA 3 has already gone maintstream, already hired a developer for "balancing". But it doesn't matter for me at all, because a real realism mod (ACE) will fix all this BS making this discussion pointless.

I already hated the "futuristic" setting of ARMA 3 but I bought A3 because of the awesome modding community making this game what it should be. An infrantry simulator. BI just gives the platform for this.

Sorry but how does the "futuristic" setting make Arma 3 less of an infantry focused game?

Oh and on balancing:

[Curry 10]

Sorry but how does the "futuristic" setting make Arma 3 less of an infantry focused game?

I don't like the futuristic setting and that has nothing to do with making this game less infantry based or realistic. It was purely a statement from me not liking the 2023 or whatever timeframe it symbolizes. A Cold War Era setting in my opinion would have been great to bring the game back where it shined but maybe it just doesn't fit all those "mall ninja wannabe Marine Seals Navy Spec Ops Airsoft playing zit faced kids" anymore.

But awesome mods will come and then all that doesn't matter anymore. For me at least. I'm glad A3 comes.

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't like the futuristic setting and that has nothing to do with making this game less infantry based or realistic. It was purely a statement from me not liking the 2023 or whatever timeframe it symbolizes. A Cold War Era setting in my opinion would have been great to bring the game back where it shined but maybe it just doesn't fit all those "mall ninja wannabe Marine Seals Navy Spec Ops Airsoft playing zit faced kids" anymore.

But awesome mods will come and then all that doesn't matter anymore. For me at least. I'm glad A3 comes.

Oof :)

Sounds like you want them to make a game they already made?

[Anachoretes 10]

Arma is already made. But ARMA 3 contains so much in-engine improvements cannont be create by any modders. Many of modders like past-wars, but future - no one. So its good point to make this setting in vanilla.

[Curry 10]

Arma is already made. But ARMA 3 contains so much in-engine improvements cannont be create by any modders. Many of modders like past-wars, but future - no one. So its good point to make this setting in vanilla.

Absolutely. And that's why I can't wait to see decent mods for A3. The engine improvements make it so much more enjoyable to play and it even runs on my PC. ;)

Maybe BI will even scratch off those nasty "always exploding vehicles" when shot with light weapons. :D

Edited June 13, 2013 by Curry

[progamer 14]

ArmA 3 has already gone maintstream, already hired a developer for "balancing". But it doesn't matter for me at all, because a real realism mod (ACE) will fix all this BS making this discussion pointless.

I already hated the "futuristic" setting of ARMA 3 but I bought A3 because of the awesome modding community making this game what it should be. An infrantry simulator. BI just gives the platform for this.

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

[Anachoretes 10]

Yes. But, they trying to make any part of combined arms nice - thats all. Any player on any side of the war must take good game.

[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.