Realism or "Balance"?

[progamer 14]

Please read before voting:

So, do you want realistic assets or unrealistic "balance" of assets in Arma 3? Many games out there have "balanced" assets. Why should Arma 3 ignore the level of realism past Arma games had? In the end mods can change the game balance and realism but as evident by certain popular mods it appears people like realism.

1. The Option "Realism" would be making Arma 3 a realistic "Simulator"

2. The option "Balance" is making the assets having "balanced" damage and armor despite the fact things would be different in real life.

3. While "Realism within Reason" would be improving on Arma 2's level of realism.

I searched the forums but coudn't find a poll like this, so if one is found please feel free to close this one.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ProGamer

[Tacti-Cool 10]

Balance. The current game is far to unstable to be a joyful experience.

[progamer 14]

Balance. The current game is far to unstable to be a joyful experience.

Balance as in the game code? Or weapons and vehicles? Because I think you mean the games code like fps and lag.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ProGamer

[Tacti-Cool 10]

All of the above. Theres no variety in the game, only thing unique is the weapons. and even then they are poorly optimized, they look great, but perform shit. gotta have a mod weapon to have a non-stressful time on the range.

[progamer 14]

Please read before voting:

So, do you want Realistic assets or unrealistic "Balance" of assets in Arma 3? Many games out there have "balanced" assets. Why should Arma 3 ignore the level of Realsim past Arma games had?

The Option "Realism" would be making Arma 3 a realistic "Simulator"

While "Realsim within Reason" would be improving on Arma 2's level of realism.

All of the above. Theres no variety in the game, only thing unique is the weapons. and even then they are poorly optimized, they look great, but perform shit. gotta have a mod weapon to have a non-stressful time on the range.

This poll is about wether weapons and vehicles are realistic in damage and Armor, the current weapon sway seems to be more towards "balance" rather than realism at the moment as it is completely random and shows the soldier doesn't have very much experience.

[suprememodder 11]

realism at the expense of balance. always.

[nodunit 397]

Funny thing is that realism tends to have a balance of its own when applied to everything.

Body armor vs mobility vs caliber vs accuracy vs maneuverability for example.

[lev 21]

Should this even be a question? Arma should always prioritize realism over balance. If you want balance, make missions featuring asymmetrical warfare.

[Smurf 12]

Funny thing is that realism tends to have a balance of its own when applied to everything.

Body armor vs mobility vs caliber vs accuracy vs maneuverability for example.

Yeah, but not everything counts ingame. Sadly.

Anyway, realism all the way!

[zooloo75 834]

I was hooked on ArmA for the sole aspect that it was at one time aimed as a simulator.

[windies 11]

Funny thing is that realism tends to have a balance of its own when applied to everything.

Body armor vs mobility vs caliber vs accuracy vs maneuverability for example.

I agree as long as all of those strengths/weaknesses are modeled properly.

[chrisb 196]

Realism within reason.

If realism is a simulator, it would make A3 a sort of VBS, don’t want that (training tool).

So as realistic as a ‘Game’ can allow, would be what I look for.

A3 is a long way away from that yet..

[Domkrat 1]

Realism! Because i don't want all guns to be shit.

[progamer 14]

Funny thing is that realism tends to have a balance of its own when applied to everything.

Body armor vs mobility vs caliber vs accuracy vs maneuverability for example.

That is perfectly fine if it is that way in real life. The problem is when things are made unrealistic for balance.

[Prodavec 10]

Realism. There's a of lot arcade shooters on the market.

Balance means: all of the guns should be with equal damage / other parameters etc. There's no balance in real life - shouldn't be in ArmA.

[artemas 1]

I think this poll is a bit of a loaded question.

But on the subject of realism, the issue is that "realism" is often used as a tag by the denizens of this forum to legitimate their own preferences - see the big debate on stamina. Realism, as has already been said, certainly does have a balance all its own. But a lot of that balance is pretty unfun, or doesnt scale to a two hour play session, or are just hard to model. Suppression, for example, is a major principle in modern combat, as soldiers understandably want to avoid getting shot up. But in a game like arma, which cannot simulate actually dying, (without making the game not very fun) has trouble. Enter various abstract suppression systems that other games have used, like BF3 or PR. Again, a contentious issue in this community. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it is either "realistic" or "unrealistic".

Many people on this forum already (if subconsciously) favour "balance" on some issues, just to make the game playable. How many multiplayer servers are there that COMPLETELY disallow respawning? The proliferation of VAS, instead of strictly assigned kit is also a token of when disregarding a type of realism for ease of use rarely gets a bad word. In other words, it is pretty common for people to favour both "realism" AND "balance", but on different issues.

I voted realism within reason.

[xcess_second 10]

Balance can be created by the mission creator. That said, inbalance tends to be a lot of fun. Having to overcome a foe more technologically and/or numerically superior makes a great challenge, there are always ways to tip the "balance" in your favour.

[progamer 14]

I think this poll is a bit of a loaded question.

But on the subject of realism, the issue is that "realism" is often used as a tag by the denizens of this forum to legitimate their own preferences - see the big debate on stamina. Realism, as has already been said, certainly does have a balance all its own. But a lot of that balance is pretty unfun, or doesnt scale to a two hour play session, or are just hard to model. Suppression, for example, is a major principle in modern combat, as soldiers understandably want to avoid getting shot up. But in a game like arma, which cannot simulate actually dying, (without making the game not very fun) has trouble. Enter various abstract suppression systems that other games have used, like BF3 or PR. Again, a contentious issue in this community. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it is either "realistic" or "unrealistic".

Many people on this forum already (if subconsciously) favour "balance" on some issues, just to make the game playable. How many multiplayer servers are there that COMPLETELY disallow respawning? The proliferation of VAS, instead of strictly assigned kit is also a token of when disregarding a type of realism for ease of use rarely gets a bad word. In other words, it is pretty common for people to favour both "realism" AND "balance", but on different issues.

I voted realism within reason.

Your ideas are various feature requests that a lot of people want like a better medical system, and the choices of various mission designers which is fine. I believe supression is good for the player as of now because sticking your head up could mean instant death, but the AI does not feel this way as well. The balance of realism and playability is another poll all together.

VBS2 doesn't simulate fusion going on in the sun, or the human brain. The term simulation can very greatly.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ProGamer

[TSAndrey 1]

Realism. But some weapons perform worse than they should *cough* pistols *cough*

[clifdenhill 1]

Realism balances itself so realism.

[thx1137 10]

Realism or Realism within Reason. Why make it a clone of other games all ready out there?

There is no reason to try and nerf the games mechanics just because some people can't beat the tougher missions. If someone wants a "balanced" fight then they can play missions where the loadouts and enemy numbers have been "balanced" enough to their liking.

Do we really want the insurgents to have weapons on par with blufor? that just seems crazy to me.

[PuFu 4600]

What is the point of this thread when the game is 2 days from release day so assets will not change either way? Am i missing something?

[dmarkwick 261]

What is the point of this thread when the game is 2 days from release day so assets will not change either way? Am i missing something?

It's another complaint-by-stealth thread :) lots of them around recently.

But , if I were to cast a vote, I might vote realism-within-reason. Absolute realism makes for a poor game.

Edited September 10, 2013 by DMarkwick

[mistyronin 1181]

What is the point of this thread when the game is 2 days from release day so assets will not change either way? Am i missing something?

The release there's no gonna bring any major playable content, and the development its not gonna end now ( I hope ). I mean they are gonna make new DLC, possible expansions and the campaign itself.

Anyway my answer:

Uhm, Rea--lism!

Well, I think that realism oriented to fun, can be really fulfilling. So, no 30 km walk with the rifle and a huge 20-40kg backpack ( been there, done that, and it's not fun ). Being hungry/thirsty because you couldn't eat/drink in two days it is not fun either.

IMHO fun-realism can be achieved with details like:

+ Good medical system ( including air/ground medevacs )

+ Elaborated but not complicated artillery system ( calling artillery, having to give direction, distance and wind corrections )

+ Real order of battle ( no one against 500 )

+ Hand signals attached to commands

+ Colored smoke to indicate LZ

+ Being able to download an APC/plane/chopper opening the door / ramp

+ Intelligence interview system ( talk with locals to get info )

+ Rest weapons in objects

+ Using stroboscopes to signal positions ( like a chem-light but only seen in NV, and also in the helmets to see who is allied or not when using night vision ).

+ Not only bang-bang missions, also once in a while some full recon, laser guiding, etc.

+ Control vehicles and weapons systems from inside ( with PiP )

Mainly it has already been implemented in other Arma's ( with or without mods ).

To me the fun increases when I can feel that the battles are not scripted. In a mission that I had to take a village, my APC has been blown up (but not as a predetermined script, just as a random event ), and I must change all the priorities to secure a LZ for the medevac; and then focus again on the village or having to clear another LZ because the medevac has been shoot down ( In A2, there was a campaign that was like that with just two scripts, a medevac that included parasoldiers that deploy and a artillery one ).

[rye1 21]

Realistic within reason. For the exact features as above if were implemented with only realism in mind would become a burden on anyone who actually wanted to play a game.