Realism or "Balance"?

[metalcraze 290]

Well the poll (even this early) kinda shows how much people want balance (basically only a whopping 2% appreciate what BIS did to A3 related to the topic)

Yet we still have exactly the same loadouts, roles and squad compositions for blufor and opfor as well as vehicle loadouts for similar vehicles.

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 fun part about how 6 months ago it was "it's only an alpha"

[celery 8]

Balance through a balanced selection of realistic assets. I.e. the option that was missing.

[katipo66 94]

Yet we still have exactly the same loadouts, roles and squad compositions for blufor and opfor as well as vehicle loadouts for similar vehicles.

Reminds me of chess... I guess a key component that oozes realism is Altis, or the chess board, hopefully one of many to come.

I think just play the game, good things will come for all tastes eventually.

[mistyronin 1181]

Well the poll (even this early) kinda shows how much people want balance (basically only a whopping 2% appreciate what BIS did to A3 related to the topic)

Yet we still have exactly the same loadouts, roles and squad compositions for blufor and opfor as well as vehicle loadouts for similar vehicles."

Don't be so hard, there are lots of people who like balance, well... one... :rolleyes:

[NeuroFunker 11]

arma is NOT a simulator, talks about realism, are kinda off the top. But it's not CoD or BF either (luckely). If you want realism, you should play VBS2, or wait at least until ACE3 is coming.

[progamer 14]

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?

I just want to see were th communities thoughts are at. And my statements about most people prefer realism over balance are validated.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

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.

It's not a complaint, this issue is discussed in bits and pieces in hundreds of threads all the time, so why not have a localized discussion area?

[celery 8]

I just want to see were th communities thoughts are at. And my statements about most people prefer realism over balance are validated.

They're not validated. Balance and realism are not mutually exclusive concepts. What you're asking with this rather binary poll is whether people want a realistic game or an unrealistic game with shitty balancing, and the third option has no implication on how it affects balance.

How about making a new poll and asking whether anyone would mind a realistic game with realistic assets that can be used to build both symmetric and asymmetric scenarios.

[giorgygr 61]

Lots of people here want to 'destroy' ARMA concept because of ignorance.

I still can hear people confusing terms as "Game mechanics & assets" with ..."Gamemode"

Unfortunately i don't own a chainsaw to split your brainz and 'shove-it-in'

MISSION MAKER MAKES THE GAME MODE

GAME MECHANICS & ASSETS EXPANDS THE VARIETY OF SCENARIOS

Still people (unfortunately elder members too..) asking to change the Game in favor to balance Gamemode

Realism within reason my a$$

Edited September 10, 2013 by GiorgyGR

[metalcraze 290]

They're not validated. Balance and realism are not mutually exclusive concepts. What you're asking with this rather binary poll is whether people want a realistic game or an unrealistic game with shitty balancing, and the third option has no implication on how it affects balance.

How about making a new poll and asking whether anyone would mind a realistic game with realistic assets that can be used to build both symmetric and asymmetric scenarios.

I don't think anyone who would vote for a "realism" option really wants OPFOR fight nuclear armed BLUFOR with sticks and stones.

I'm from a realism camp myself and I'd say that ArmA2's USMC vs. Russia were perfect example of how it's done right.

[mistyronin 1181]

MISSION MAKER MAKES THE GAME MODE

GAME MECHANICS & ASSETS EXPANDS THE VARIETY OF SCENARIOS

More clear, impossible.

[Deadfast 43]

It's not a complaint, this issue is discussed in bits and pieces in hundreds of threads all the time, so why not have a localized discussion area?

Considering your use of quotes in the thread title I'm inclined to disagree. At the very least the question is a tad loaded.

[celery 8]

MISSION MAKER MAKES THE GAME MODE

GAME MECHANICS & ASSETS EXPANDS THE VARIETY OF SCENARIOS

More clear, impossible.

And yet the latter part is forgotten or ignored by so many. It's the very reason why this forum is populated by human klaxons who start wailing every time someone speaks of balance in a non-negative manner.

[gammadust 12]

@GiorgyGR How gruesome! :o

OT: For any gaming purposes (even simulators): "Realism" by its own can only be tentative, but if this effort is throughly succesfull, it ends ultimately unfitting either purpose. "Balance" is always relative yet an absolute requirement. "Realism within reason" (implied is: "reason" as to keep it a game, therefore still a simplification/metaphor of reality - in this sense "reason" = "imagination" which are at odds).

Sorry for this semantic deviation, but the concepts are much too loaded and there's various levels at which they can be applied to arma. Realism over all levels (assets, gameplay, visual, etc.) mixes itself with Balance in the same hand.

The simplest response i can come up with is: if one expects Arma to be a game/simulation closer to the realities represented (relatively to simpler games), the closer it gets the more complex the balancing effort is required, since any negligent "balancing" will destroy the "realism" achieved. While the realism effort is mostly objective the balancing is not. I'll even risk to say that everyone always wants both.

The real questions then are:

1 - Do we wan't arma closer to the simulation genre or not?

2 - What kind of compromises (against reality) are we as players willing to accept? (or do we agree with the compromises BI did?)

1 - Yes!

2 - Too long to answer. (i mostly agree, but there are definitely issues)

What GiorgyGR said remains true, since a good chunk of the above decisions are left to the mission maker.

Edited September 10, 2013 by gammadust

[David77 10]

Realism all the way. "Balancing" a large scale war game is a just another step towards the game being one gigantic COD game. Vehicle & weapons diversity is one thing I've always liked about the franchise. It isn't tit for tat & it isn't cookie cutter.

[mistyronin 1181]

The real questions then are:

1 - Do we wan't arma closer to the simulation genre or not?

2 - What kind of compromises (against reality) are we as players willing to accept? (or do we agree with the compromises BI did?)

1 - Yes!

2 - Too long to answer. (i mostly agree, but there are definitely issues)

What GiorgyGR said remains true, since a good chunk of the above decisions are left to the mission maker.

It's is an interesting reflection. And I do like how you synthesize the questions.

In fact, IMO your questions make more sense than the actual ones.

[progamer 14]

Considering your use of quotes in the thread title I'm inclined to disagree. At the very least the question is a tad loaded.

Then feel free to modify it to be better, I can't modify the poll after its started.

[gammadust 12]

well, it may still look like i wanted to hijack the topic...

The OP question as is can make any of us prefer Realism over Balance and simultaneously it's inverse depending on circumstances. Let's test some extreme cases:

For a realism-kind-of-guy Nato equipment would be represented in-game while overpowering any confronting equipment, if anything for the latter's being outdated. Yet this same guy would favour a balancing adjustment against reality if he really wants to play a game against opposing forces, ie. he still wants to play a chalenge.

For a balance-kind-of-guy opposing gear would have the exact same stats so that conditions of winning are level, this would automatically distance itself from reality, simply because reality is not a "fair game". This same guy would perhaps reconsider because the balanced game he is playing becomes monotonous as much as a coin throw.

At current state of Arma 3 it really is specially hard to take a stance, the game took a Futuristic approach where anything is possible in the imagination set by Bohemia. Bohemia as shielded itself from that, we're left with assumptions of "what would be" and "what could be" this future reality.

I am very happy with the gameplay infantry challenge Arma 3 presents currently. On top of that it borrows from what i understand as infantry reality to a great extent (it could borrow some more still - and you can take me as a realism-kinda-guy here).

[SPC.Spets 21]

I was going to vote for realism, but I voted for Other. Im putting all my hope in ACE3

[vagabond985 0]

Im putting all my hope in ACE3

It's gonna be a while before ACE3 comes out of it hole...

[Cyper 18]

People who vote for a ''balanced'' or dumbed down game is not something one should care about. They don't have anything to do in this community and one shall just ignore their voices.

[eymerich 11]

Realism within reason

It's a game: if i would have lived as soldier for sure i would have joined the army (which i didn't infact)...

[PuFu 4600]

People who vote for a ''balanced'' or dumbed down game is not something one should care about. They don't have anything to do in this community and one shall just ignore their voices.

Why? Because they have another opinion that yourself?

[David77 10]

Why? Because they have another opinion that yourself?

No he's just saying the majority of the original community prefer realism & that alot of the new comers are coming here and voting to dumb the game down via balancing the game (unknowingly). That's why most played this franchise to begin with, was the sense of realism. Large scale, realistic war. Not that the game is realistic in every aspect, but there's not exactly alot of large scale military sandboxes around either.

[katipo66 94]

No he's just saying the majority of the original community prefer realism & that alot of the new comers are coming here and voting to dumb the game down via balancing the game (unknowingly). That's why most played this franchise to begin with, was the sense of realism. Large scale, realistic war. Not that the game is realistic in every aspect, but there's not exactly alot of large scale military sandboxes around either.

Have you done research and survey on the arma demographic or are you guessing things from this threads poll?

[ProfTournesol 956]

No he's just saying the majority of the original community prefer realism & that alot of the new comers are coming here and voting to dumb the game down via balancing the game (unknowingly). That's why most played this franchise to begin with, was the sense of realism. Large scale, realistic war. Not that the game is realistic in every aspect, but there's not exactly alot of large scale military sandboxes around either.

Well, i've got the reverse feeling most of the time. Newcomers being extreme pro realism, while bored old vets looking for refreshing things that A3 could bring.