Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Victor]

In terms of simulation, BIs record on armament is superb, but it terms of balanced multiplayer gameplay its not, and arguably has never been for the sake of realism. This question has been posed in previous titles (OFP/Arma1/Arma2) but since BI has taken the liberty of extending the timeline of their next IP into the future, I was wondering if there was anything mentioned on the subject of having equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides since they have the liberty to stretch what is realistic and what is not.

There are some east players who enjoy being east, I get that, however, most flock to the west team in almost every server I join (arguably better AT, tanks, light vehicles, weapons/scopes) and I would (for once) like to feel like both teams are worth playing all the time.

[InstaGoat]

If combat turns out fair, you did it wrong.

Balance is something for boardgames and competition, E-Sport type titles. This is a milsim. Combat is unfair. Deal with it. Or as they teach the people in the military: Assess, Adapt, Overcome.

[Flash Thunder]

LOL wat?

You serious?

[Steakslim]

People flock to West teams because it's what they are familiar with, it has nothing to do with balance, it's favoritism. I can tell with with certainty that before Arrowhead, the Russian faction was greatly overpowered over the Marine unit in ArmA2, and damn it was fun being on either side of those encounters, and after the expansions if a mission uses the Russian units, they are still well equipped. Even in Combined Ops, if there's a pvp match, the mission maker may disable some things (like flir) for balance, but that's about it. Either side has their advantages and disadvantages. If a team is getting steamrolled that team is doing something wrong.

[Nicholas]

War is not fair. You can win a war with outdated equipment, you just have to be smarter than your opponent.

[b00ce]

ArmA is not, and never will be, about "balance". If things end up balanced (and I'm sure it will be pretty close since there are two super powers going at it in ArmA3) it won't be for the sake of balancing things, it'll be for the sake of making things authentic within the confines of the story line.

Take ArmA 2, for example, the Russians outclassed the Marines; in OA, the US Army absolutely dominates the Takistani army.

[colossus]

I guess they'll take a few liberties when it comes to balancing it out, like what sort of weapons the infantry are using, but I don't think you'll see it more equal then that. A 7.62×39mm will still act like a 7.62, and so would the 5.56×45mm as a 5.56. It would just be silly and boring otherwise.

[CameronMcDonald]

Agree with all of the above - I imagine we can see OPFOR exerting a substantial overmatch on BLUFOR in the SP campaign, however, balance is something that should be considered by mission author rather than artificially introduced.

[GiorgyGR]

Normally in ArmA3 we SHOULD see balancing.
You see..
1) the WHOLE story is fictional (if i saw in RL an Iranian soldier wearing camera on helmet..i ll eat my hat..AND yours 2)

2) YES-I don't know if this sounds 'strange' to some people's ears but..
LOTS of us playing PvP! (oO)
So..while the matter of "forces simulation" doesn't stands anymore..it would be nice to have balance for our PvP matches-without
to do 'magic' as having both sides rearming from "unisex" weapons (lol)

pure 100% logic..

[metalcraze]

Real combat is never balanced.
Taliban doesn't care if west has FLIR, NVGs and shit when planting those IEDs that kill more western soldiers than their AK bullets.
If you can't beat Abrams with your AK - get creative.

And I hope Bohemia will stay true to reality, not true to so called "MP balance"