Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

Yeah, I hate quake style games, and I hate quake style variations of military shooters, the market is flooded with them.

What I love about this series is that strategic planning is always going to determine how long you survive, this game is not about making combat as accessible to every Tom, Dick and moron that want to twitch their way through a game.

As mentioned, there's plenty of those games out there.

This game rewards people who think before they dive into an encounter armed only with a pistol, and I like it like that.

Because Arma 2 would become Quake 2 if OPFOR had a decent fighter jet and TI equipment in their tanks, right?

Because Arma 2 would become Quake 2 if OPFOR had a decent fighter jet and TI equipment in their tanks, right?

I bet he never went against a KA-50 in Armed Assault 1, otherwise he'd be singing a different tune. :D

KA-50 was a disaster: even if it theoretically can target slow-hovering aircraft in real life with its Vikhr missiles, doesn't mean it should've been in-game with these TAB+Click mechanics, which did ruin games.

Get real people!

Just imagine the only difference between the A3 factions/sides is just the unit color/patch/insignia/BDU..... how authentic or real would that be + feel? Simple mission are good + fun for the casual crowd and to lure new people into Armaverse. More complex missions are good + fun for "Die Hard" sim crowd and veterans. BIS just need to get their mission makers to work harder on making an awesome A3xperience!! No beer and knedliky the next weeks.... ot they all get fat and lazy! ;)

I bet he never went against a KA-50 in Armed Assault 1, otherwise he'd be singing a different tune. :D

KA-50 was a disaster: even if it theoretically can target slow-hovering aircraft in real life with its Vikhr missiles, doesn't mean it should've been in-game with these TAB+Click mechanics, which did ruin games.

Get real people!

I'm a little bit confused now, are we still talking about MP balancing or ArmA 1 config bugs? Bugs or the lack of features (Aircraft not having a RWR).

Anyway, i don't get the deeper meaning of this discussion anyway. IMHO BI should portray the vehicles and weapons based on their real counterpart (if existing) or based on knowledge of chemistry, physics and ballistics. If this causes any sort of imbalance for any type of gameplay, there is always the way of making a replacement mod which balances weapons and vehicles. So, what's the point exactly?

Myke;2178149']I'm a little bit confused now' date=' are we still talking about MP balancing or ArmA 1 config bugs? Bugs or the lack of features (Aircraft not having a RWR).

Anyway, i don't get the deeper meaning of this discussion anyway. IMHO BI should portray the vehicles and weapons based on their real counterpart (if existing) or based on knowledge of chemistry, physics and ballistics. If this causes any sort of imbalance for any type of gameplay, there is always the way of making a replacement mod which balances weapons and vehicles. So, what's the point exactly?[/quote']

PvP players don't want mods. They expect a balanced game right out of the box.

Myke;2178149']Anyway' date=' i don't get the deeper meaning of this discussion anyway. IMHO BI should portray the vehicles and weapons based on their real counterpart (if existing) or based on knowledge of chemistry, physics and ballistics.[/quote']

Did someone really even suggest otherwise? A big part of vehicle balancing is picking which vehicles to have in the game in the first place. That's why the OP was hoping that the future setting would allow some solutions to make both sides serious contenders in a full spectrum battle.

Did someone really even suggest otherwise? A big part of vehicle balancing is picking which vehicles to have in the game in the first place. That's why the OP was hoping that the future setting would allow some solutions to make both sides serious contenders in a full spectrum battle.

I think most of us read it as he rather forego realism on the basis of it being a near future setting, and create configs/units that are essentially identical to cater for the PvP Scene. Re-reading his post (ah the benefit of hindsight), it seems he is actually asking that equipment selection is done in a logical manner to reflect a balance, of sorts. We're not completely limited by what the nation currently uses with A3.

Some of the points raised, however, still ring true, I'd hate to see ridiculous choices, configs, foregoing common sense just in the name of a perfect world, I find its more interesting if they balance out across the board, rather than having identical counterparts, but thats of course my personal opinion.

PvP players don't want mods. They expect a balanced game right out of the box.

Hi. No, I will probably want mods AT SOME POINT depending on the vanilla, mod teams always make something better than vanilla - using this in PVP is a good tester.

I expect a semi-balanced game, but with DLC's and MODS it's a unrealistic expectation, I expect semi-balanced missions.

Takistani Insurgents. You can say they suck in terms of weaponry and are OUTBALANCED. But all you need is out-positioning, out-numbering or out-ranging and you can do lethal damage.

It's how you use it, not how big it is Mr Charles.

I think people are starting to miss how strategic or tactical you have to be in an open world environment with clear objectives.

Hi. No, I will probably want mods AT SOME POINT depending on the vanilla, mod teams always make something better than vanilla - using this in PVP is a good tester.

I expect a semi-balanced game, but with DLC's and MODS it's a unrealistic expectation, I expect semi-balanced missions.

Takistani Insurgents. You can say they suck in terms of weaponry and are OUTBALANCED. But all you need is out-positioning, out-numbering or out-ranging and you can do lethal damage.

It's how you use it, not how big it is Mr Charles.

I think people are starting to miss how strategic or tactical you have to be in an open world environment with clear objectives.

I know that you can "balance" games like this, but PvP players apparently don't.

Just a summary of the balancing in the previous games.

Operation Flashpoint

Small arms: different but neither side has functionality that the other doesn't, save for NATO's AR optics and the almighty G36

Cars: Light cars are fairly balanced: NATO has Jeep, MG Jeep and Humvee as opposed to USSR's plain UAZ, but USSR has the heavily armored BRDM

Light tanks: M60 is slightly inferior to T-72

Main battle tanks: Abrams is slightly superior to T-80

Helicopters: Quite balanced, although USSR's only version of Mi-17 has almost 200 rockets to spam all over the place

Planes: Quite balanced

Armed Assault:

Small arms: US has all sorts of toys, OPFOR's most advanced gun is the scoped AKS-74

Cars: General purpose cars are imbalanced to the better-armored Humvee's favor; US has a truck with MG

Tanks: Abrams is vastly superior to T-72, the best that OPFOR has

Helicopters: OPFOR's single-seat Ka-50 is a bit imba with its missiles, otherwise US has more variety and better specialization

Planes: OPFOR's Su-34 is inferior in both air and air-to-ground combat against US's specialized planes

Arma 2:

Small arms: US has a ton of toys for all occasions, OPFOR has only single attachments besides grenade launchers for its narrow variety of guns

Cars: General purpose cars are imbalanced to the better-armored Humvee's favor

Anti-air: Otherwise ok, but OPFOR's Tunguska is ridiculously overpowered

Tanks: Even the weakest Abrams is vastly superior to Russia's non-TI'd T-90, or indeed Takistan's pride, the T-72

Helicopters: OPFOR's Ka-52 has trolltastic missiles, but otherwise NATO's choppers clean house

Planes: OPFOR's Su-34 is inferior in both air and air-to-ground combat against US's specialized planes; Su-25 and L-39 are underequipped and stall easily; F-35 completely dominates every OPFOR plane

These are the facts that all mission makers have to deal with when they're making pvp missions with something more than just infantry. The problems are amplified the fuller you want the spectrum to be. I hope this clarifies the context of balancing requests that some people here interpret as attacks against realism.

I bet he never went against a KA-50 in Armed Assault 1, otherwise he'd be singing a different tune. :D

KA-50 was a disaster: even if it theoretically can target slow-hovering aircraft in real life with its Vikhr missiles, doesn't mean it should've been in-game with these TAB+Click mechanics, which did ruin games.

Get real people!

I've purchased and played -everything- this series has to offer.

---------- Post added at 02:19 ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 ----------

Because Arma 2 would become Quake 2 if OPFOR had a decent fighter jet and TI equipment in their tanks, right?

Not really that, I think you're intentionally going off on a strawman tangent because I came down pretty hard on the sensibilities of those who play mainstream military FPS games.

"Balance" in that respect has a lot to do with mission design than anything else, and to be quite honest there's an entire world of possibilities for those who are patient and intelligent enough to learn how to modify the game.

What I'm saying is, in no uncertain terms should any newer demographics who are used to the conventions employed by mainstream military FPS developers be appeased. That is bar-none my biggest fear, as that's not a step forward, its like the first time somebody plays QWOP and steps backwards, falls and snaps their own neck.

I like the fact that in such a game, you're not always going to be working at parity with your opponents, its often an excellent exercise in thinking your way through a situation instead of relying on being configured to play out like a deathmatch sport.

Nearly all of my own custom missions involve being massively disadvantaged, I enjoy that sort of challenge.

some people here interpret as attacks against realism.

Which is far from right because realistically your opponent will always try out-do you in some fashion. If we look at military technology, some are far more advanced than others. If we look at ground-fighting, some principles are to out-number your opponent. I seriously don't get 'realism', how can it not be realistic if:

- It's physically possible (it abides by real-world scientific laws)

- It acts as you expected or as a real-life situation may

- It's used in reality ... I only agree with this last one to a degree ...

You can't get all righteous over calls for balance when the game ships with plenty of wacky unrealistic abilities for various weapons and vehicles. Are the lightspeed better-than-sidewinder fire-and-forget Vikhr ATGMs that stupidly overpowered because of balance? Or is it just an error? Either way, it prevents you from honestly saying that realism is what balances ArmA.

Also what are you trying to say exactly with those videos?

Show you that sometimes in combat it is unwise to attack with a larger force than that of the enemy. If overwhelming numbers were used in the attack shown in the video it would have resulted in unnecessary casualties from the artillery barrage brought down by the defenders. Sometimes massing forces is not an option.

I can absolutely clean house with an Su-34, and 25. They're arguably the best planes in the game, especially if you know how to fly them.

I can absolutely clean house with an Su-34, and 25. They're arguably the best planes in the game, especially if you know how to fly them.

Until someone equally able goes against you in an A-10 or Harrier.

Until someone equally able goes against you in an A-10 or Harrier.

Well, in this department I'd say the sides are somewhat balanced: Su-25 & A-10 both don't have missile launch warning systems; Su-34 & the Harrier is a bit different story: heavy twin-seat multi-purpose bomber vs. single seat S/VTOL multi-purpose jet with superior handling characteristics.

F-35 is in a wholly different category, though. :)

Guys it is really simple

If you make realistic vehicels and weapons then everything will balance itself (well of course the Mission builder must have this in mind)

Stuff that is not balanced has either:

A) Magic radar with Tab lock stuff

B) Stupid Hitpoint system

So my message to BIS is to do their best to make everything as realistic as possible, the mission builders will balance the numbers.

Guys it is really simple

If you make realistic vehicels and weapons then everything will balance itself (well of course the Mission builder must have this in mind)

Stuff that is not balanced has either:

A) Magic radar with Tab lock stuff

B) Stupid Hitpoint system

So my message to BIS is to do their best to make everything as realistic as possible, the mission builders will balance the numbers.

You mean... do it pretty much like the ACE 2 team had done?! Blasphemy! :icon_twisted:

ACE still has Tab-Lock no?

ACE still has Tab-Lock no?

Depends on the weapon. Most got Laserguided stuff.

I find it silly that "balance" is such a naughty word here that makes everyone go apeshit in a hasty attempt to be the one who sounds the most anti-arcade and, by extension, the biggest milsim fan because opposing other things is the hallmark of such fandom.

The usual strawman associated with balancing is that whoever even ever so slightly suggests balance wants everyone to have the exact same equipment, or at least completely unrealistic vehicle specs. That is, as I said, a strawman. It's also possible to pick the vehicles so that there isn't clear full spectrum imbalance like there is in Arma 1 and 2.

I wonder how many people who laugh at the concept of balance and say embarassing things like "USA vs. <undeveloped country's guerrillas> isn't balanced, your argument is invalid" have a tendency to play pvp missions that don't, for a change, revolve around asymmetric warfare or buying stuff. Asymmetric warfare is called that for a reason, and that is to differentiate it from warfare (the normal kind, remember?). I have played in large-scale pvp tournaments, and putting clearly imbalanced vehicles as counterparts can make a very big difference in the course of a 3-hour battle, and victory can be attributed to the superior vehicles if there wasn't much score difference, and the bad blood generated by it is all the more bitter the more obviously superior said vehicle is.

Yes, there will at least be rigorous mission-side balancing in Arma 3's multiplayer.

I agree with this 100% balance is HUGELY important in a non purchasing PvP battle. What I think the OP is getting after is this. Will ARMA 3 have enough tools on each side to properly match the other faction. Doesnt have to be balanced. But tools of the trade have to be in place to allow the mission maker to create a scenario that can be equally fought over.

There are so many variables that make today's real world combat more fair. Unintentionally of course. the number 1 reason being ROE. Do you realize how fast the US could level Afghanistan? it could all be over in a matter of weeks, the tools we posses at this time in history are unprecedented in their power and accuracy. But because the mission revolves more around tactical restraint it is leveled towards armies that have far less tech to use. "tactical restraint does not exist in a PvP gaming environment no matter how realistic you make the equipment. So when I can see you in my M1A1 with FLIR from 3000M off as bright as the sun. And you cant see me at all. well, thats why you need "Balance".

So BIS please include tools on each side that make an out of the box, unmodded game, fun to play. If you do this you will see the numbers of PvP players sky rocket. Don't get me wrong I love mods and all, but trying to get a new player to go DL a mod first thing out of the box is a difficult task.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:37 ----------

Myke;2178149']I'm a little bit confused now' date=' are we still talking about MP balancing or ArmA 1 config bugs? Bugs or the lack of features (Aircraft not having a RWR).

Anyway, i don't get the deeper meaning of this discussion anyway. IMHO BI should portray the vehicles and weapons based on their real counterpart (if existing) or based on knowledge of chemistry, physics and ballistics. If this causes any sort of imbalance for any type of gameplay, there is always the way of making a replacement mod which balances weapons and vehicles. So, what's the point exactly?[/quote']

Again I think the OP is speaking of the STOCK game. IF BIS realizes how completely broken TAB LOCK AND FIRE was then we should be sitting pretty with laser guided missles in A3. That ONE fact ruined so many air engagement, as the KA-50 and 52 can be doing loops at 7000 M away and be launching missles for 100% kills.

So it stands to reason if BIS goes TRULY realistic or as close to it as they can, the mission makers wont have to "balance" near as many things.

If BIS would implement proper working radar/electronic warfare, communications/datalinks etc people would cry and moan even more about that A3 is "too hard", "too challenging", "too complex". Casual players do like balanced MP because there is nothing too realistic or too advanced on each side/faction. For them the game is just simple fun shooting / killing for the stats and getting some bonus/rewards for "extraordinary" actions. Imo its a good way to let the players/server admins choose what + how they want to play eg via mission parameters. There is no need to balance all weapons/vehicles and aircrafts so all their counterparts are basically the same eg Blufor MBT = Opfor MBT, Blufor helicopter = Opfor helicopter, Blufor funky weapon system = Opfor funky weapon system.....

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly. David Hackworth

ACE still has Tab-Lock no?

No most stuff is wire or laser guided, that means you have to keep your cursor on the target until the missile hits. BIG improvement over vanilla since you won´t get a 100% hit if the target tries to evade.

There is no need to balance all weapons/vehicles and aircrafts so all their counterparts are basically the same eg Blufor MBT = Opfor MBT, Blufor helicopter = Opfor helicopter, Blufor funky weapon system = Opfor funky weapon system.....

Whose point are you even arguing against with that?