Who Likes Balance In Games Then?

[guyguy1 0]

in OFP there wasnt much balance regarding tanks and air vehicles (which is good), but the assault rifles (m16, ak74, ak47) did the same damage. The BMP seemed to have stronger armor than the bradley (correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems inaccurate) in OFP. I did a lot of testing and I found that the T80 had weaker armor than the M1A1 and that the M60 had weaker armor than the T72 (no balance..good). I'm assuming that there will be even less cheap forms of balance in AA than in OFP  

[ebns72 0]

The problem with AT weapons in ofp is the lack of a correct damage modeling/armor system. The damage in ofp is just based on a health bar...I've taken out bmps with enough grenades before.

To correctly model balance and unbalance arma needs an amor system. For example, some hits with an AT weapon will do absolutely 0 damage. Some maybe kill it in one hit, depending on where you hit the tank (armor thickness varies throughout tanks.)

WWIIOL had this system and it required a significant more amount of skill to take out a tank, because you had to have knowledge of where all its weak spots were and you had to diagnose the rest of its combat weaknesses. If arma had an armor system like so, it would make the game signifcantly more realistic.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

The problem with AT weapons in ofp is the lack of a correct damage modeling/armor system. The damage in ofp is just based on a health bar...I've taken out bmps with enough grenades before.

To correctly model balance and unbalance arma needs an amor system. For example, some hits with an AT weapon will do absolutely 0 damage. Some maybe kill it in one hit, depending on where you hit the tank (armor thickness varies throughout tanks.)

WWIIOL had this system and it required a significant more amount of skill to take out a tank, because you had to have knowledge of where all its weak spots were and you had to diagnose the rest of its combat weaknesses. If arma had an armor system like so, it would make the game signifcantly more realistic.

Isn't that what the Lib-45 team did with their tanks? You could disable their tracks and so on, or their turret, and I'm pretty sure they even had shell ricochets in that mod too! If a mod team can do something like that on the old engine, I'm sure BIS can easily impliment a much better system on a pretty much entirely new one (well it's re-written/optimised), and they can change the engine itself if they can't mod it it.

Oh the BMP/113 thing. They're pretty crappy, the BMP1 was feared more by the troops who rode in them than the guys it went up against, it had cardboard thin armour that had problems stopping small arms fire! That's why the BMP2 came out so soon afterwards. The M113 (older ones) aren't exactly the best when it comes to armour, but the newer ones, 80's onwards could survive (note SURVIVE) an RPG or something, and give the crew enough time to run like hell before it starts to burn like mad (well it does have aluminium armour). Bradley's can take one or two before they're screwed, same story as the 113, only they have a much larger profile and so are easier to hit.

Even the mighty Abrams sucks the big one one if you don't hit them on the front. They've lost quite a lot in Iraq to side and back hits from as few as 1 single RPG. I heard a story of a gunner being hit by an RPG that penetrated the side armour of the Abrams, got into the crew compartment and was stopped by his personal body armour (yey for interceptor!. Granted they were lucky it hadn't armed and exploded like it was supposed to after penetration, so the lucky sods lived.

Oh and before this turns into an "Abrams isn't crap" thread, they're not designed for modern combat we see today, they're made for Cold War combat, fighting other tanks head on on open battlefields, thats why most of the armour is up front, so stop tank shells. They really need replacing or at least need some sort of major all round protection modifications.

On Topic... I say make it realistic. The good thing about many MP games (WGL CTI being a prime example) is over coming your opponents even when they have superior equipment to you in some form. The US totally decimate the Russians armour when the Abrams come out to play, so to compensate you either make a hell of a lot more T80UM's (like the Russians did, they have more armour than all of NATO combined! or set up defences and hope to funnel them into a killing ground where you've set up some lovely AT-5's or RPG spam them, then the KA-50's come in and take them out from above where their armour is weaker (I've tried it, it actually is too. Top down attacks require less hits!. The Russians always seem to dominate in terms of air power, so the US make crap loads of Vulcans (man I hate those things! They engage you beyond visual range!, and they also have better small arms, but have no long range AM rifle like the US do.

In short, make it realistic. There's nothing wrong with forcing the weaker side to use TACTICS to come through. That's where this game is so different from most other games. Even if you have a poorly equiped force you can still win with some smart strategies... then nick their better kit when you've killed 'em!

[robert(uk) 0]

In short, make it realistic. There's nothing wrong with forcing the weaker side to use TACTICS to come through. That's where this game is so different from most other games. Even if you have a poorly equiped force you can still win with some smart strategies... then nick their better kit when you've killed 'em!

So, so true!!!

[USSRsniper 0]

Balance... who needs balance. Its still fun to play for example for resistance that have crappy weapons and tanks   You still can kill enemy even in M1  

Superior weapons doesn't mean victory    but some BF2 fans think it is, and this is why you need to balance. Without balance it will force players to use tactics before running to enemy base

[Cycloon 0]

OFP/ArmA = Simulation

BF2 = Arcade

Enuff said.

[JdB 151]

Or BIS could just be smart and make an ''arcade'' kind of play and a ''realistic'' kind of play like they did for OFP, but make the difference between the two a little larger. That way they might increase sales, and we would end up with all kinds of brainless, TK'ing BF2 converts out for personal glory......oh wait that's not good

[twisted 127]

IMHO every weapon, vehilce and even every bullet should be modelled as close as possible to it's real life equivalent.

imbalance come when weapons are nerfed and don't react in a way that the 'military' intended. nothing is worse when a weapon shoots in a random cone rather than based on recoil. its then a matter of rolling loaded dice to see who wins. hardly fun.

balance comes when its realised that the weapons are designed to fulfil a function (eg kill or wound the enemy) and each has its own strnegths and quirks.

if someone wants to try and fire an ak47 at full auto from 200m away good for them. they'll miss badly and probably die fast because that's not the way the weapon is made to work. but if they put it on single shot, go prone, aim and take timed shots then they'll start knocking the enemy down even with the ak47's higher recoil.

as importnat as weapon realism is human realism - the slight waver of the gun barrel as muscles try to hold it still, or the time it takes for the eye to focus on a target, or the time it takes to get up from prone.

OFP came closer with the 'human' than anyother game i know. i really hope they take it further.

PS - for natural balance please remove artificial crosshair on screen.

[robert(uk) 0]

PS - for natural balance please remove artificial crosshair on screen.

Yeah, I could do without that too...  

PS - As long as we are allowed to use iron-sights...

[max power 21]

you would still need them for grenades. Your body gives you feedback on where the thing will be thrown, but they don't have iron sites. Since the crosshair floats, you can't guestimate the centre of the screen... so, I think you would need the grenade crosshairs on the HUD even so.

[Llauma 0]

you would still need them for grenades.  Your body gives you feedback on where the thing will be thrown, but they don't have iron sites.  Since the crosshair floats, you can't guestimate the centre of the screen... so, I think you would need the grenade crosshairs on the HUD even so.

You'll get used to throwing nades without a crosshair. You'll get the estimated direction by watching your gun.

Rifle fired nades are a little tricker though but I am sure that it's tricky IRL too if you decide not to use the nade sight.

I guess that BIS could seperate the nade and bullet crosshairs so you can enable them seperately to please everyone. I hope that they also make it possible to decide how hard you wanna through instead of being forced to adjust the angle to get the right length.

OFP was quit crappy 'cause most things were balanced. The weapons also had no sway and recoil when firing single shots so it didn't matter if your aim wasn't that good 'cause you could instantly fire a second shot without any problems. FDF mod on other hand is much better. The recoil and weapon sway means that you'd better focus when firing your first shot.

[robert(uk) 0]

you would still need them for grenades.  Your body gives you feedback on where the thing will be thrown, but they don't have iron sites.  Since the crosshair floats, you can't guestimate the centre of the screen... so, I think you would need the grenade crosshairs on the HUD even so.

They don't have iron-sights for guns? I thought this was a war simulator?

[berghoff 11]

Who said war is fair anyway? I don't care if its 12 vs 8 or the enemy has superior tanks/choppers.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Balance sucks, but there are ways to strike a better balance without sacrificing realism.

For example, with small-arms, incorporating availability, encumbrance and reliability would be a way to balance out the AK-47 with the M16.

The AK-47 is less accurate than the M16.

The AK-47 uses a heavier round, meaning you can't carry as many rounds, but it has greater stopping power.

The AK-47 is easier to get and less expensive, meaning that it is more common and easier to equip your troops with.

A dirty AK-47 is more reliable than an immaculately-cleaned M16.

An AK-47 is heavier than an M16.

The M16 is lighter, more accurate, less reliable, and less hard-hitting than the AK. It's easier to accessorize an M16 than it is an AK.

In the end, a good player will know how to effectively wage war with whatever weapon he was "issued" in the game. You learn the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment and that of your enemy and you seek out advantages where they can be found.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Rifle fired nades are a little tricker though but I am sure that it's tricky IRL too if you decide not to use the nade sight.

In my experience, the sights on the M203 take too long to employ and are damned deceptive once you do, just like in the movie "Hamburger Hill". I nearly "bolo'd" on the M203 qualification range (you only got 3 shots) because I was trying to rely on the sights.

It's quicker and easier to guesstimate the angle on the shot.

[meyamoti 0]

BF2-arcade and supposed to be fair (yet teams are usually not,go figure ) But OFP was originally made as a military simulator was it not? Therefore no,balance is something I wouldn't look for,its quite similar to comparing addon makers addons nowadays,their not all going for balance as much as realism which in terms of THIS game imo is a good thing,if OFP is going to be a military simulator we need as much realism as possible,even if it makes getting your assed handed to you on occasion. All is fair in war and nothing is unstoppable,a tank or helicopter can have all the armor in the world,but it is possible to still take it down,or atleast jack it up badly.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Standardization, however, is good.

[galbaldy 0]

FDF mod on other hand is much better. The recoil and weapon sway means that you'd better focus when firing your first shot.

Except that FDF mod recoils are not realistic at all. They jump into the air with only 3 shots. However, FDF WW2 is much better becuse SMGs and LMGs now have much more realistic recoils.

[Heatseeker 0]

Hopefully no more 3 round burst AK74/47's nor east M2, no more reloadable LAW's either, i too am all in favor of realism vs balance but some problems could rise in adversarial MP mode..

[Baphomet 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...  

That's complete bullshit.

I've hated idiotic reasoning like that in games.

They've deprived me of realistic weapon performance for I don't know how many years.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

PS - for natural balance please remove artificial crosshair on screen.

Yeah, I could do without that too...

PS - As long as we are allowed to use iron-sights...

Removing the crosshair, would be removing realism. The crosshair on-screen, is giving us a estimate of where the gun is pointing.

I was trained in shooting without aiming, and could hit targets (the size of a man) from 100 metres without aiming. If you remove the crosshair in arma, you block out this, and therefor make the game unrealistic.

[NeMeSiS 11]

PS - for natural balance please remove artificial crosshair on screen.

Yeah, I could do without that too...  

I was trained in shooting without aiming, and could hit targets (the size of a man) from 100 metres without aiming. If you remove the crosshair in arma, you block out this, and therefor make the game unrealistic.

Actually i can hit targets without crosshairs/iron sights, not as good and not as fast, but very possible  

[berghoff 11]

Crosshairs can already be removed. In OFP it is quite different as the crosshair isn't fixed at one point in the center. But anyway not having a crosshair doesn't have anything to do with game balance in OFP like I already have experienced on several servers.

[Supah 0]

I think this whole subject is a rather moot point. BIS will put in an X amount of objects and if the modding tools get released the rest will come from the modding community. I am looking forward to the engine enhancements, not to the actual units that BIS is going to do. Sure they will be fantastic and great technology demonstrators of what can be done but in the end the largest lump of units is going to come from 3rd party addons Balance or not is more in their hands, not BIS's. Even if they wanted too they couldnt controll balance like BF2 does as anyone can add units and weapons to the game.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think this whole subject is a rather moot point. BIS will put in an X amount of objects and if the modding tools get released the rest will come from the modding community. I am looking forward to the engine enhancements, not to the actual units that BIS is going to do. Sure they will be fantastic and great technology demonstrators of what can be done but in the end the largest lump of units is going to come from 3rd party addons Balance or not is more in their hands, not BIS's. Even if they wanted too they couldnt controll balance like BF2 does as anyone can add units and weapons to the game.

Well i still hope the "stock" units will be good enough for addon free MP gaming, because without standardisation addon usage can make for some very weird visual and gameplay impact. The units from OPF are old and dated but they all follow the same quality patern and style .