Who Likes Balance In Games Then?

[robert(uk) 0]

Just wondering whether all you guys want to see a BF2 style balancing system, like where the M6 Bradley Linebacker isn't allowed to be amphibious because the other sides' AA vehicles aren't, even though the M6 is amphibious in real life.

Or would you like to see something more 'realistic' in AA, which is what I certainly want.

Please discuss...

[GBee 0]

I want vehicles, weapons and equipment to be realistic and not artificially crippled.

In the base game there should be a rough balance of vehicle and weapon types even if their actual abilities vary. So long as this reflects the real world availability of those items.

I'm not sure I want to see prototypes available just to create an artificial balance e.g. The Kamov in OFP which I believe wasn't really in mainstream service at the time?

[Metal Heart 0]

I think it's the mission maker's job to handle balance in missions, not BIS modelers or addon makers.

[SOMaster 0]

I think mission designer should design with 1,5 of two eyes on realism..

[EiZei 0]

If I wanted such I would be playing BF2.

[AtR 0]

I dont really like balance (even if im on the losing side) , because in war there is no such thing as balance.

[Heatseeker 0]

I didnt even know that the bradley had amphibious capabilities, if it requires field modification it doesnt count .

[robert(uk) 0]

I didnt even know that the bradley had amphibious capabilities, if it requires field modification it doesnt count .

Well, I'm not sure if any amphibious vehicles can just 'drive' into the water. I think they all have to be prepared in a certain way. But that would spoil the game. Just being able to drive an amphibious vehicle into the water is what I want, not having to set it up first...

[Heatseeker 0]

I didnt even know that the bradley had amphibious capabilities, if it requires field modification it doesnt count .

Well, I'm not sure if any amphibious vehicles can just 'drive' into the water.  I think they all have to be prepared in a certain way.  But that would spoil the game.  Just being able to drive an amphibious vehicle into the water is what I want, not having to set it up first...  

Well, if its gonna be OPF style amphibious BIS might has well include masts, sails and anchors because i doubt bmp's and M113's would do very well in the ocean .

Some buddies i know were M113 drivers and out of all stories of floating in ponds, breaking tracks and late hour mud and dirt cleaning they never mentioned any amphibious specific modification .

[GBee 0]

Amphibious capabilities were pretty useless in OFP and unless Arma has rivers I can't see much point there either. The vehicles are too slow in water, making them sitting ducks on anything but short crossings or well defended landings. I can't see any advantage to using the amphibious capabilities on lakes for example - driving around them would be quicker and no doubt safer!

[jtec 0]

Amphibious capabilities were pretty useless in OFP and unless Arma has rivers I can't see much point there either. The vehicles are too slow in water, making them sitting ducks on anything but short crossings or well defended landings. I can't see any advantage to using the amphibious capabilities on lakes for example - driving around them would be quicker and no doubt safer!

Say a bridge is covered and the only way to cross is going into the water, that i would say is being a advantage.

As other people have said, Mission makers will give the balance and im pretty sure BIS will keep things as rl as possible (if it does it in real life it will do it ingame)

[metalchris 0]

You don't have to make every vehicle opponent the same ...

weaknesses in terms of armor or firepower should be encountered with greater numbers.

of course its harder to balance it that way , but as blizzard games show it is worth the time.

[@cero 0]

You don't have to make every vehicle opponent the same ...

weaknesses in terms of armor or firepower should be encountered with greater numbers.

of course its harder to balance it that way , but as blizzard games show it is worth the time.

Yes, I agree on that one.

Balancing is part of war, and most of the times things scale, but you'll never see a balanced battle in the world, there is allways a winner, and the winner wins by having an advantage, this being fire power or inteligence.

You have to take a town, your intell tells you that there is 4 T-80 in the vecinity, you don't have acces to any Abrahams, but you can get some M- 60's, you won't face 4 T-80's with 4 M-60's, you'll try to balance things by adding more armoured vehicles and AT weapons, by planing the attac properly, if you have the possibility to ask for CAS you will, then the balance is broken and you have an advantage, like in real life. The enemy may be aware of that or they may expect it and have planned a defensive action against air strikes, the balance is back...

Get realistic vehicles and weapons, and let the mission maker and the player deal with the rest.

Just my two cents.

Regards.

@CERO.

[AtR 0]

in OFP the biggest BMP/M113/Bradley disadvantage was the 1 shot 1 kill with LAW/RPG which is kind of funny, a soldier with an RPG (which doesnt cost that much i think) kills an armoured vehicle(BMP/Bradley) which costs alot of money(sm1 if knows the price then mention it) with 1 single shot , damage of AT weapons / armour of vehicles was never realistic

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I dont care, as long as the enemy soldiers die from my rifle anyway

[lwlooz 0]

Simple.If you take away the differences between 2-n armies tactics,equipment.. you do not need to have 2 armies at all.Balancing is therefore total bollocks.

Oh,and btw,I can't see where the problem is if a cheap weapon disables a expensive one.Seem perfectly okay to me .If you were to equip a soldier with a 800$ weapon that kills a 1.2million $ weapon,I would call you a strategical genious

[AtR 0]

Im not really that familiar with military stuff but does really an RPG has the power to kill a BMP/Bradley with 1 shot ? i know that Javelin rips stuff apart as a grunt AT weapon, but RPG .. ?

[Zendjir 0]

As long as there is gameplay balancing in MP i'm happy. With gameplay balancing I mean a mix if unit strenght, intelligence, terrain advantages, numbers, etc.. The gameplay balance in SP should be determined by the mission designer.

[robert(uk) 0]

You don't have to make every vehicle opponent the same ...

weaknesses in terms of armor or firepower should be encountered with greater numbers.

of course its harder to balance it that way , but as blizzard games show it is worth the time.

Yes, I agree on that one.

Balancing is part of war, and most of the times things scale, but you'll never see a balanced battle in the world, there is allways a winner, and the winner wins by having an advantage, this being fire power or inteligence.

You have to take a town, your intell tells you that there is 4 T-80 in the vecinity, you don't have acces to any Abrahams, but you can get some M- 60's, you won't face 4 T-80's with 4 M-60's, you'll try to balance things by adding more armoured vehicles and AT weapons, by planing the attac properly, if you have the possibility to ask for CAS you will, then the balance is broken and you have an advantage, like in real life. The enemy may be aware of that or they may expect it and have planned a defensive action against air strikes, the balance is back...

Get realistic vehicles and weapons, and let the mission maker and the player deal with the rest.

Just my two cents.

Regards.

@CERO.

Yeah, that's a good example there. You would have to make up for your losses. Would certainly make it more interesting anyway...

[max power 21]

I'm not sure about the bradley, but the rpg7 was capable of penetrating the m113 in vietnam like butter. It could detonate in the trees 10 yards away from the m113 and still penetrate the front armour. I read a tactical brief on the thing. It's available on the fas site under rest-of-world-weapons-systems\rpg or something.

And the Bradley has to be prepared with a swim barrier kit in order to be amphibious... so it's not really... unless you want to put on the kit in BF2... or drive around with the swim kit on.

[crave22 0]

Balance in ArmA = Nuh Uh

Like you all said, leave it to the mission designer to balance it out.

However, whatever you do, don't make the weapon damage, range, etc. the same for each side's weapons, like an M16 having the same values as an AK-74 or 47. Or an M60 being the same weapon with a different model as the PK. That's one thing that I always hated.

[mr reality 0]

I'm in favor of not having balanced weapons, mainly because ArmAs will be played out as a US soldier (afaik) and we all know how they operate. Bomb the shit out of the place then send in the helicopter gunships and then when it's all clear send in the Marines. They will nodoubt fire off a few of there javelins for good measure and hey presto "area is clear sir".

[DBR_ONIX 0]

For a simulation game, I'd say no, make it realistic.. But for games like BF2, and the best example, Halo (I could kill someone on foot, from a tank, but I could also fairly easily kill someone in a tank, even with a rifle), balance, while not realstic, is fecking fun.. But, this only applies to arcade games..

By making the game realistic, you instantly balance it out anyway.. Snipers can sprint around with the scoped view, you can b*nny-hop everywhere, rocket launchers are useless against infantry etc.. Aslong as the AI have decent artifical-stupidity (I.e not instantly slot you in the head from 3000 meters because they have a clear line-of-sight to you, and don't have eyes in the back of their heads), the realism will balance the game out, since in reality, nothing is unstopable (Well, sorta..)

- Ben

{Edit : Appologies about the insulting word}

[Lightspeed 0]

bunnyhopping is a dirty word in my books, plz dont write that again....

Im not sure how weapons loadouts work in this game, but as long as theyre isnt one kit that is so dominant that everyone wants to take it, then thats fine.

Lighty.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

bunnyhopping is a dirty word in my books, plz dont write that again....

I appologies for it, I've edit my post to clean it up.....

Quote[/b] ]Im not sure how weapons loadouts work in this game, but as long as theyre isnt one kit that is so dominant that everyone wants to take it, then thats fine.

The whole kit thing isn't quite how OFP works.. I really think if BIS stick roughtly to the game-play of OFP, they would have to severly screw up somewhere to make it unbalanced..

Sure, I can pick up an anti-material sniper of an enemy, and slaughter people miles away, but as soon as a tank, or an other sniper sees/hears it, you'll not be on their christmas card list for long.

Aslong as there isn't one gun thats perfectly accurate, that you can spring with and aim perfectly, never run out of ammo, take out tanks/planes, and it makes you invicible, ArmA won't be unbalanced

- Ben