Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[tremanarch]

its funny how in warfare it kind of balances itself.. normally you have like 20 people playing blufor and 8 ppl going opfor ^^

but opfor are usually vets while blufor are mainly dayz players.

its like this: young americans driving the phat loot (m1a2 stuff) and get blown up by some RPG Soldiers.. Or newbies standing in the open and getting shot. etc

hehe

[danny96]

It is balanced - West has better technology, East may be in most times overnumbered

[Victor]

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.

Thank you... a lone voice of reason from someone that gets it.

[manface]

I like balance.

[Qazdar]

Hehehehe,ofcourse balance is needed !

In ArmA 2,you find the latest West technology in a hand,and in the other hand the soviet era armement for OPFOR ... they need first to give us both sides assets, then, if one is missing something ,he has to live with that.

Just by comparing russia and USMC,you can find a huge difference in equipement while modern russian gear is similar to what USMC has in real life (RPG 29 as counterpart of SMAW/MAAWS,T90S/TUSK,SU47/F35C ,khrizantema/bgm tow etc ... ) ... Metis is a guerrilla weapon nowadays

Balance is possible,BIS just needs to update its calendar :S

[Iroquois Pliskin]

Don't dis ArmA II's OPFOR balance, Qaz. It's fairly even, with Ruski forces having the most mobility and concealment options, half of their units have lower profiles, compared to Western vehicles: T-90s, T-72s, BMP-3s and BTR-90, especially, is icing on the cake with its OP armaments.

The only thing I see out of place is the Su-34, as compared to the original Harrier and initial Tunguska dis-balance... (until Benny fixed it by sticking Tung missiles on the M6 Linebacker ;p)

[Timnos]

If, hypothetically, BIS armed the Iranians with captured Merkava's for the sake of multiplayer balancing people would then probably start complaining that the game is unauthentic...

[OnlyRazor]

If, hypothetically, BIS armed the Iranians with captured Merkava's for the sake of multiplayer balancing people would then probably start complaining that the game is unauthentic...

People'd complain about authenticity even without that. That's why there's a thread about authenticity.

[Timnos]

People'd complain about authenticity even without that. That's why there's a thread about authenticity.

And guess what the first complaint was about, yep you guessed it, the Iranian Merkava....

[Pd3]

I have no problem with equipment rosters per-se, however I have a huge problem with the idea of weapon systems themselves being modified with on the basis that multiplayer will suffer.

That's the main concern I have.

Simply put, altering the whole game on the basis that it won't make multiplayer enjoyable is the reason why its taken SO long for realistic shooters to gain a foothold.

Every retarded deathmatch oriented FPS out there sacrificed diversity for continuity (and thereby balance).

I would even go so far as to suggest one of two things:

1: make a separate set of addons for multiplayer variants that are flagged by the host of a server.

2: better yet, let the community do this so that it at least looks like BI isn't pandering to a lot of deatchmatch obsessed weenies migrating from other games.