Balancing - what is wanted for a great experience?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just curious what people think what is more important in a milsim (or tactical milshooter) and why: a) more realistic + believable assets per faction/group or more balanced + equal assets per faction/group? b) Some unique features/technologies for each side or just all the same/similar for everyone? What makes you enjoy the game and perhaps replay missions??

[Sealife 22]

The people I play with are the most important factor

Failing that it would be the AI

Ofp looked shit played shit on my PC , but the players made it feel great despite the games flaws

[katipo66 94]

A

more realistic + believable assets per faction

And in terms of Arma 3 i hope it doesn't go the bf/cod route where everything is more or less the same.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Katipo66

[PuFu 4600]

Just curious what people think what is more important in a milsim (or tactical milshooter) and why: a) more realistic + believable assets per faction/group or more balanced + equal assets per faction/group? b) Some unique features/technologies for each side or just all the same/similar for everyone? What makes you enjoy the game and perhaps replay missions??

a, obviously

I really hope it doesn't go the bf/cod route where everything is more or less the same.

what shouldn't go BF or COD route? there is no product specified, it is only a generic question here

[JdB 151]

Just curious what people think what is more important in a milsim (or tactical milshooter) and why: a) more realistic + believable assets per faction/group or more balanced + equal assets per faction/group? b) Some unique features/technologies for each side or just all the same/similar for everyone? What makes you enjoy the game and perhaps replay missions??

More realistic + believable assets per faction/group :)

[[evo] dan 79]

More realistic + believable assets per faction/group :)

+1, although the people you play with do help also.

[Tonci87 163]

A

I believe that realistic assets balance themselves. Mankind always has invented countermeasures to wepon systems and I can´t think of a vehicle or wepon that is without a counterpart or specific disadvantages.

[nodunit 397]

I would say realistic assets BUT also behavior.

Take for example these there things, body armor, jumping, combat knife. In a typical game manner more armor just means a few extra shots, jumping is something everyone can do and knives kill in one hit for the most part, but if you toss in realistic behavior...

The armor system could potentially weigh the player down and make them more sluggish to maneuver, the heavier or more armor you wear the more restricted you are in different ways be it how far you can aim, lean or turn. You trade mobility for protection against higher and higher caliber weapons. Be it simple body armor that can only absorb weak handgun based bullets such as 9mm, or steel plates that are designed for higher ballistics.

Knives tie into this by being the chance of making you bleed based on armor worn or not at all if the blade is unable to penetrate the shell. The knife would serve as a last ditch effort rather than a sneaking tool for one stab kills, to kill an opponent would require multiple stabs to which a person with a handgun would have a slightly better chance of putting you down first, again based on armor.

Jumping would be a form of mobility, the heavier armor you wear, the less distance and height you can do so, with steel plates leaving you in a rock-like state. With the heaviest of armor you wouldn't even be able to leap bound over low walls. In this manner jumping compliments armor based on surroundings, influencing the decision and possibly making that choice actually matter. Such as finding yourself in a small town, you could wear armor to protect yourself from some caliber bullets and the odd crazy stabber but you wouldn't be able to lean around the corners as effectively or move around as well.

In this way they influence game play but also provide a balance, tit for tat, a trade off of one attribute for another, punishing and rewarding the player at the same time, and in a way influence the important of transport.

Tanks vs infantry are another often brought up but great example, if the crewman are limited to even just their periscopes, with no radar whatsoever, they are essentially blind and MUST scan their own surroundings rather than rely on it to pop up on radar, furthermore they must also track the contacts by eye.

In relation to this the armor gets protection depending no the type..an MBT capable of taking several hits to the front but weak in the back, this forces the infantry to plan their attack, the lack of tracking equipment allows them to sneak around, and the added armor makes the tank a weapon to be feared if attacked incorrectly.

Here's another example of helicopters and mobile AA. The helicopter MUST have a laser designation system to use laser quided weaponry, it MUST then lase a target to be able to use the weapon to any efficiency, this sets the helicopter to be a sitting duck, rather than flying forward at 100kmh and blasting things with laser guided weaponry as though it were nothing.

The helicopter has no radar but an early warning system, flying by NOE allows them to fly under the radar of said AA, they also have a jammer which can only be turned on for a few seconds, and if left on will burn up, and flares with a very short burn out time, small cartridge and percentage of working rather than garuntee.

In response to this, anti air can turn off their radar to be essentially invisible, if the aircraft activates their jammer prematurely, then the mobile AA is immediately alert to them being in the area. If the helicopter flies too high from ground level then they appear no radar, If the helicopter flies NOE then depending on position, the anti air could run into a scenario wherein the helicopter flies right over them, during which the radar is off. Using shell weaponry the AA could then attack the helicopter without them even knowing.

That gives the dynamics of AA and helicopter a game of cat and mouse, who has more wit, knowledge of terrain and their own systems, realism influences balance.

Edited June 1, 2013 by NodUnit

[Smurf 12]

Option A, unless you get a scenario like A2OA where you have a HUGE difference between forces and you can't really represent the thing that make the difference IRL.

[katipo66 94]

what shouldn't go BF or COD route? there is no product specified, it is only a generic question here

fixed for you.

Apart from the arma and raven shield series ive never really played many milsims and tac shooters, but have enjoyed the diversity and realistic portrayal of the Arma2 and OA factions, I get this formula is probably not the best if you are wanting to compete a little in the arena market.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Katipo66

[metalcraze 290]

Option A, unless you get a scenario like A2OA where you have a HUGE difference between forces and you can't really represent the thing that make the difference IRL.

Add more OPFOR - problem solved. That's what asymmetrical warfare is.

Every single gun being equal to another with only damage/rate of fire being different is why BF and CoD are such dull games where you can't tell AK47 apart from M4

And realism is already balanced. Remember - countries already create tech to counter the tech advancement of another country. Javelins striking the top of tank tower where armor is weakest, reactive armor on tanks that counters missiles. There you have your balance.

Edited June 4, 2013 by metalcraze

[sander 14]

Any balanced fight is the result of bad planning. Missions should be unbalanced so players get the opportunity to figure out how to stack the odds to their own advantage by exploiting a combination of available equipment, terrain, time and enemy capabilities.

Regards,

Sander

[NacroxNicke 11]

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/02/12/marines-taliban-and-tactics-techniques-and-procedures/

Better IA, better simulation of equipment (OP acogs anyone?, well, that's more related to when you use optics and you don't renderize long range vegetation such as grass)

If those are made, the game would get balanced itself

Edited June 6, 2013 by NacroxNicke

[mrcash2009 0]

a) more realistic + believable assets per faction/group

This particular option for me. I want to see and know what im in for if Im at a disadvantage to a better faction, I like the challenge and also it makes for interesting ways to play and re think your approach knowing your limits or in reverse knowing your strengths. Also if you play with the advantage and the opponent thinks this way then its also going to be interesting for you as the assumed dominant force. Like Pufu mentioned this is more general and not specified game for my point.

The only balance comes when as a game realm something sticks out like a complete exploit. Hard in some ways because in Arma's case its the mission maker that should be creative with the balance aspect not the games raw mechanics.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about different research & developments, strategies and use of more advanced technologies vs ingame balance? For example: one side does have a fire-and-forget AT system and the other just got a wired/laser system. Should groups/factions + their assets in games be balanced just for the sake of fun or is it even more enjoyable to find solutions and win against so called "imba" assets?

[dmarkwick 261]

What about different research & developments, strategies and use of more advanced technologies vs ingame balance? For example: one side does have a fire-and-forget AT system and the other just got a wired/laser system. Should groups/factions + their assets in games be balanced just for the sake of fun or is it even more enjoyable to find solutions and win against so called "imba" assets?

This is why editors are needed for balance/imbalance to mean anything. Given that there is the possibility for balanced games, an editor also allows for the possibility of imbalanced games. The same cannot be said for intrinsically imbalanced assets, and a balanced game.

[instagoat 133]

Balancing in the sense of Arma is nonsensical because it is truly a sandbox game. You can put down 500 soldiers with rifles, and one tank, and you will have a massively unbalanced mission. It is up to the mission designer.

I think what´s more important is working, sensible, useful, well thought out and capability comparable Items at the disposal of the mission designers. Another thing is distinct factions with strengths and weaknesses. For example, one faction may employ heavy machineguns in SAW role instead of LSWs, and can put down lots and lots of deadly fire, while the other side can put down average amounts of fire, but can do it for much longer for the same weight carried in ammo, and do it moving around more quickly because they don´t have to lug the guns around.

The question really is wether there will be copycat factions (which eases balancing, but is impossible in a context of reality, because real world weapons are -not- designed to be fair.) or "character" based Factions that encourage a certain style of play, or if the factions will be modelled as close as humanly possible to real life capability. The latter would make for terrible balancing, because certain setups that would be fair in a "character faction" setting would be completely toppled.

In a real world scenario, for example, in a insurgents vs big army scenario, a Mission success for the Insurgents would be "Survived observing gunships, Snipers and Machinegun fire to get off a single RPG shot at a parked tank, who shrugged the hit off due to its armor and returned fire, killing your team and making you drag yourself home with your shirt on fire." And in a Big Army vs Big Army scenario, modern weaponery is so excessively deadly that in many situations, it just comes down to who sees the other side first, and calls in either Arty or CAS.

The rest of the mission would just be sweeping up the remnants.

Basically, look at the first US-Iraqi war in the Gulf, 91. War in real life is decidedly not fair, when all bets are off. You don´t count casualties by individual tanks or soldiers, you write off entire battalions and regiments. The total loss rate for the entire army of Saddam was 5% a day, every day throughout the campaign.

Being on the side that doesn´t get the first sight would be a tremendously boring play. And curbstomping your enemy at every turn is also not very satisfying. When you observe gaming clans like shacktack play, you often see that heavy duty kit is either absent or severely limited. Ironsights, no NVGs, maybe not even maps. Arma 3 will not be able to carry the setting all the way, because then you could reduce all Missions to spying with thermals, carpetbombing whatever is in front of you, and clearing out the remnants. Or have that happen to you, and withdraw after your squad has been bombed to zog.

At least, that´s how I feel about this right now. The question of balance is moot in Arma, as long as the Assets ingame are diverse enough to allow for the mission designer to exercise their own balancing.

Arma 3 goes a huge step forward with this, because of the more advanced gear system you can custom tailor even individual Units to the specific mission requirements, down to their protection and carrying capability.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well isnt' it bad if mission designers don't care much about the details and placing stuff on the island/map just to be equal by the numbers? Such missions are imo only somekind of quick skirmishes or simple "horde blue vs horde red" mode/DM. Its up to the mission designer to place certain units in a certain place and its up to the players to choose their own plan of attack/defense. Guess if the opponent has a better asset in a certain place its up to players to find a way to make it ineffective eg find a way around and/or ambush+destroy it. How many missions are worth to be (re-)played just because players like to figure out the right tactics/strategy against an "superior"/more advanced opponent?

[froggyluv 2135]

Personally I would find better entertainment in behavioral distinctions rather than equal/non-equal kits. From commander to fireteam leader to grunt, personality and troop specific personality templates could be far more interesting. Passive/Agro/Dependable/Psycho/Defensive/Rabid Idealogue would be pretty fun if fleshed out on the battlefield.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well roleplay is up to players themselves otherwise the game has to limit and restrict them into certain roles eg soldier/weapon classes and rank/leader system. Think there are many MMO shooters out and it doesn't make so much sense to jump on this bandwagon just to for the sake of trying to get a piece of the MMO shooter cake.