Balancing in ArmA

[-UMPC-Hunter 0]

Hello,

Ive played ArmA and OPF since release and if I only compare these both games I found following main balancing problems:

- choppers fly too slow and have only a small armor, so it is very easy to destroy a chopper by plane tank or noobly easy by AA. No tactics needed for shot down a chopper by an AA.

- tanks have the same problem, but not so strongly. The mission designer can only use M136 and RPG, not Javelin.

Tank fights are very boring because a tank is down with 1 or sometimes 2 shot. You can destroy a T72 with 2 PRGs...

I do not need a new OFP, but why should someone use a tank or a chopper? The answer is: You got killed... mainly in a chopper...

@BIS:

Please raise the choppers armor points to a value that nobody could destroy a chopper with one AA.

For example: The big Mi17 shall be eat one AA without problems.

Please raise the tanks armor points to 150 - 300%.

No heavy tank shall be destroyed by an other with one shot.

For example: Give the M1 armor points to get down by 3 T72 shots. Give the T72 armor points to get down by 2 M1 shots.

But pleeease PRIO 1:

Turn off each engine if no player oder ai is inside it.

A multiplayer game is unplayable if only 10 players get out of their jeeps and these eniges are running. It makes my crazy if I hear each running engine.

... and do not switch off aiming targets for light tanks like 1.07beta.

Sorry for my english :-)

German

[uMPC]Hunter

[mattxr 9]

Someone fires a AA missle at you, you dont have a chnace of survial .. always ends up as Im going Down!

[DucusSumus 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please raise the choppers armor points to a value that nobody could destroy a chopper with one AA.

For example: The big Mi17 shall be eat one AA without problems.

Yeah, this is wholly unrealisitc. While it is unlikely that you will explode with one hit, you will most certainly crash shortly thereafter. There's just no way to retain control in a helicopter after something like that. If you want to avoid AA fire, fly fast in a path perpendicular to the AA soldier's line of fire. It will probably miss.

[Beagle 684]

There where balance problems with Operation Flashpoint, like tanks battles that deemed like large Battleships fighting it out in the Skagerak or flying tanks called "Hinds" that could eat up to 5 Stingers easily.

Thanks god this is gone now, and BIS did some research this time and made ArmA a bit more "to the book".

So yes...there is no second chance if you geht hit by a MBTs mains gun except you're in a M1A1, in this case you have exacly ONE second chance if you retreat fast enougt...absolutely fair.

As to helicopters...did you ever heard of samething called news, or newspaper or propaganda pamphletes...

This mashines tend to fall out of the skies like flies in combat zones when the pilots feels to save.

There is no real "armor" to airplanes or helicopters, just things like titanium tubs to protect the pilot and composite plates for the most vulnerable parts like engines or gearboxes, so he can eject alive if the aircraft get's teared apart by 23mm or 30mm AA guns or even heavy MG fire. There is no all around protection.

Why someone would try out choppers or Tanks...maybe because it's a challenge and he or she knows how to use them properly...there is nothing like a unbeatable unit on a modern and balanced battlefield.

RAISING ARMOUR TO MBTs..are you nuts...it took them 6 years to finally get it somewhat realistically and right...why mess it all up again...?

Balance is absolutely right now... you just can't drive in your M1A1 from Kuwait to Baghdad alone and eating 21st century sabots from 125mm guns like donuts, and you can't fly unmolested by a hailstorm of AAA and groundfire with your Cobra...

Oh, and just to avoid the next topic... no you probably won't survive a well placed headshot, bee there a kevlar helmet or not.

end of transmisson

[Mabes 0]

Most of the helicopters in ArmA are just disabled when hit by one anti-air missile, causing them to either go into a spin and crash or just flat out "falling rock" as either the tail rotor gets hit or the main rotor gets hit. I've yet to see a helicopter (from either side) explode from the impact of a strela/stinger missile.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Balance is abolutely right now... you just can't drive in your M1A1 from Kuwait to Baghdad alone and eating 21st century sabots from 125mm guns like donuts, and you can't fly unmolest by a hailstorm of AA and groundfire with your Cobra...

LOL I liked this Brilliant, well said!

[Beagle 684]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ May 14 2007,01:48)]LOL I liked this    Brilliant, well said!

Thank you...!

I'm still learning this kind of english language...

Forums like this are a good teachers

[churnedfortaste 0]

Beagle is 100% correct, If you watch the video, "Concealment vs. Cover" (I think it's called) you will get an insight as to how powerful many types of rounds are, when It comes to high calibres, 25mm, 30mm, AT rockets and tank shells, no armour stands much of a chance...

[Guggy 0]

From what I've seen in videos, ArmA is rather lenient in regards to your helicopter not exploding catastrophically due to a Strela!

Though IMO, it is indeed annoying that the Heavy machineguns can engage you from 1500 meters away in an aircraft. Now a Shilka is a different thing altogether, but an M2 or DSHK would have a PRETTY difficult time hitting a chopper or even TRACKING it from that long a distance.

And I really like the Abrams as is now. Being able to decrease the cannon elevation to -8 degrees means that you'll be in a better position to avoid being shot in the first place. And in the instance a T72 DOES hit you, you will be able to withdraw. A T72 doesnt have the fortune to have either of these traits :P

[max power 21]

It sounds like the original poster just doesn't use the proper tactics with the attack helicopters and tanks. You can't just fly around balls out and expect to survive. I find masking at some huge range (> 1 km at first) and searching for targets by popping up briefly and then remasking to be quite effective. I'll pop up, acquire target, remask. Then I'll pop up, launch, wait until the round impacts (even though I know I don't have to) and then remask, then move, then repeat. You can even move between the target acquisition and firing phases if there isn't going to be some occluding terrain (like a building) in the way if you move. You can also try to use indirect fire by masking well behind a hill with a target acquired, aiming the nose up slightly and launching, arcing the missile over the hill. You should rarely die in an attach helicopter, if ever, if you use them properly.

In ArmA, try only to engage from an advantage. If you don't have an advantage, try to break contact until you have one. Fighting through every scenario you come across is silly. In helicopters, you almost always have 3 advantages. You have Range, Firepower, and Surprise. Given none of those, you ALWAYS have the initiative to break contact and run and come back sometime later or from a different angle. If you think there are troops with AA missiles in the town, just don't go there. Whipe out all of the vehicles from some fantastic distance and see how well they do with that launcher when their support is gone and your troops roll in. You don't have to do everything.

[Key Dutch 0]

ok there is simple idea, in real life one AA missiles just enouth to destroy chopper, there is very big chans its will hit target. that why in real life attack chopper minly use Vs Armor. they stay away from battlefield and use they missiles form the distance, if u chek most of videos from Irak, they even fly at night, couse they aware this problem. but im agree Bohemia could put in attack chopper at least auto-relise of flyers.

second, do u ever seen what happed with tank (t-72 for example) if u put in him 120mm Titanum Sabot or deplited Uranium sheel? i would not advice stay clouse to the tank.

and last in game u can disable T-72 with one  M136 shot, however, in real life exist some AT missiles wich use duble sheped charge. This missile can easy go true normal armor along with ERC on she. my guess Bohemaia make game more realistic, and im thx. Bohemia for that. Im not need one more Delta Force or HalfLife. real battle one shot one dead, like it is.

P.S.  Learn how to use tank and choppers. i complete all missions, and never had problem with them.

Sorry bout misstakes , english not my first language, and even not second.

[icebreakr 3159]

For choppers: use terrain cover, fly low and use evasive maneuvers when under fire. Tanks can proceed more slowly but in an organized group with the support of infantry or light vehicles in towns.

Be sure to checkout Dslyecxi's "ArmA manual":

http://dslyecxi.com/armattp.html

[Marus 0]

@ Beagle

ArmA is a game, which is for fun.

ArmA pseudo realsim is not fun, so if Hunter like to have fun like in OFP, he isn't wrong.

People like you should go and buy VBS2.

And everyone else should get a game like OPF, if he brought ArmA.

btw..

Hunter @ May 14 2007,00:51)]

But pleeease PRIO 1:

Turn off each engine if no player oder ai is inside it.

A multiplayer game is unplayable if only 10 players get out of their jeeps and these eniges are running. It makes my crazy if I hear each running engine.

*sign*

[twisted 128]

i'd want realism over 'balancing'. that's fun to me. and the premise of the ArmA - what makes it different. but maybe someone will make an Arma non-reality mod.

[whisper 0]

@ Beagle

ArmA is a game, which is for fun.

ArmA pseudo realsim is not fun, so if Hunter like to have fun like in OFP, he isn't wrong.

I'm sorry, but the kind of survival rate described in the original post can only be found when chopper/tank rush like crazy in the middle of the fray without enough thinking.

And it definitely doesn't take 2 RPGs to destroy a T72. Disable its tracks, yes, kill it, no.

The number of times I've seen choppers running around above the battlefield thinking they're god in the sky (like you see them in BF2) just to be 1-shot by my (or other's) tank main gun, I can't count. Would these guys be 1) better pilots, 2) thinking a bit more before, I'd be properly nailed down

Yes, tanks & choppers are more challenging now. And challenge = fun. Unless you like everything easy for you presented on a plate.

[trut 0]

@ Beagle

ArmA is a game, which is for fun.

ArmA pseudo realsim is not fun, so if Hunter like to have fun like in OFP, he isn't wrong.

disagree, big time. arma is advertised as a "realistic combat simulator". not a "fun combat simulator".

war is not funny. and thats my idea of fun

[EaglePryde 0]

Beagle is 100% correct, If you watch the video, "Concealment vs. Cover" (I think it's called) you will get an insight as to how powerful many types of rounds are, when It comes to high calibres, 25mm, 30mm, AT rockets and tank shells, no armour stands much of a chance...

It would be far unrealistic if a chopper could substain a couple of hits. What bugs me or i haven't seen yet are some good countermeasures that any combatheli has..chaff,flare..

What bugs me on the other side is that you should be able to see SAM/AA Sites via GPS. From what i know is that atleast some intel. for combat pilots is available.

I miss AVACS in this game. It's suicide to let pilots get into a war zone without proper intel.

And what i don't understand is when you place a satchel charge and blow up a tank, the crew just gets out like it would be nothing. Happend atleast in my own missions that i created. They should be dead.

[max power 21]

@ Beagle

ArmA is a game, which is for fun.

ArmA pseudo realsim is not fun, so if Hunter like to have fun like in OFP, he isn't wrong.

disagree, big time. arma is advertised as a "realistic combat simulator". not a "fun combat simulator".

war is not funny. and thats my idea of fun

I guess you're also under the belief that big-macs are 2 feet thick, are made of ingredients that were picked this morning, and are the best hamburgers you're ever likely to taste in your life...

It is advertised as the 'ultimate combat simulator'... compared to other games, this is not false advertizing.

[trut 0]

I really dont get the point of that last reply. I meant to say that a game wanting to be a combat simulator should not be made easier for people whose idea of combat is "riding in a M1A1 from Kuwait to Baghdad" in one go because its "fun".

and as much as someone wants "arma light", i really don't want it.

don't eat bigmacs. ever.

i prefer rubelj.

edit: and, yes, regarding the marketing remark... when I am president, the marketing people will be the first ones to go. one-way train ticket for them...

[max power 21]

I really dont get the point of that last reply. I meant to say that a game wanting to be a combat simulator should not be made easier for people whose idea of combat is "riding in a M1A1 from Kuwait to Baghdad" in one go because its "fun".

and as much as someone wants "arma light", i really don't want it.

don't eat bigmacs. ever.

i prefer rubelj.

edit: and, yes, regarding the marketing remark... when I am president, the marketing people will be the first ones to go. one-way train ticket for them...

The point was to insist that you don't believe the marketting blurb or believe that ArmA is something that it's not. It is entertainment software.

Neither of those cities are in arma and it's possible to ride over the entire island in an abrams without running out of fuel.

[trut 0]

okay, entertainment software it is.

i like the way this piece of entertainment software doesnt let you fly on after you've taken one in the tailpipe. and think it should not be changed.

cause that's entertainment for me. cause its a bit closer to reality than an almighty armored charriot in the sky.

someone else does not find this entertaining. its not fun getting shot down. i want fun, i bought the game. okay, use some tactics while flying. be careful. don go in rushing things.

if you want to be god simply because you got your pilot patch, there are other pieces of entertainment software for that.

please, read the post, don't nitpick about semantics.

[max power 21]

I did read the post. You said it was a realistic combat simulator. It's not. It's a game and it is meant to be fun and make money. This argument has come up a lot, given that advertizing blurb. Don't get me wrong, I'm a reaslism nut, but your argument that arma is a simulator as advertized adds nothing to the discourse.

[trut 0]

ahhhh, nevermind

[Gecko1969 0]

And your expectations that you can do the things you listed with Tanks and Helos shows you miss the simulation part of the game. But all the write ups that were done by anyone who knew the history of the game mostly make a point that it is an infantry centered game not a Tank or whatever simulator.

So your expectations of how things work is off. I will blame movies and the portrayal of combat they give to let you off the hook (the number of times I have seen people pulled out of a crashed car by well meaning bystanders because they expect the car to burst in to flames is a similar thing). Your idea of what is fun and others' idea are not matching up. Fine we all can have our opinions. However the direction you would like to go has been done already it is called Battle Field 2 and you can pick it up today. The core of this community has no interest in seeing ArmA become a repeat of BF2, so don't take it personally that you get people defending it against the ideas you think are great.

Different expectations and a different game. Change one to solve your problem but don't expect to find yourself welcomed by those who don't share your views and don't take it personal.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's a game and it is meant to be fun and make money.

The issue here is that for a huge portion of ArmA customers means "having fun" that they have a realistic simulator. The discussion is to which extend.

I would say: As far as possible with this engine, the rest you can put into the wish list or into mantis.