Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Pathetic_Berserker]

Accuracy and authentic feel of equipment outwieghts any PvP balancing IMO.

[Deadfast]

Once again, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[MrNicklebe]

I hope that the weapon systems are fairly realistic. I doubt there will be any major imbalances as they seem to be taking some liberties with what the armies are using. Either way it wont matter I think, because in my experience with Arma 2 Public PvP everyone wants to join the US team to use M4's and Apaches whilst Russian team wins most rounds anyway :S. I always thought that said a lot about the players on each team .

[ricnunes]

I want to say that I'm against "artificial balancing" in the sense of making units from both sides to have similar performance/strenght/whatever since these games (at least up to ArmA2: Operation Arrowhead) are definitly made to be REALISTIC - These games are in fact "milsims" at least regarding infantry combat (I agree that vehicles are a bit on the "arcadish" side).
And regarding the Assimetrical Warfare in real life, I want to say this:
- Many here have said that the one side which is the strongest (NATO in the Aghan war for example) are vastly superior (technology, weaponry , etc...) and are basically "invincible" in a "conventional head-to-head battle/war" while the other (Taliban in the Aghan war for example) must use "guerrila" tactics to survive and be able to inflict loses on the enemy and the ones that say this are in fact correct! But most here seem to forget (I admit that I haven't read all the post in this thread - very long thread) one very important advantage that the "weaker side" such as Taliban or Sadam era Iraqi army in real life (which could be modeled for Takistan army and militia in ArmA2:OA ) has over the "stronger side" (USA and NATO for example) which is the ability to take loses -> If the stronger side (again NATO in the Aghan war or USA in Vietnam for example) in an assimetrical war takes some loses and in the case of those loses being from western countries the public oppinion will stop supporting their countries envolvement in the war and thus with the final result that the "stronger side" will actually lose the war (this was what happened with the USA in Vietnam and Somalia), while at the same time the "weaker side" have the ability to sustain much more loses without losing their "will to fight". Also the "weaker side" could potentialy have more manpower imediatly available (in terms of infantry) and will certainly have a much bigger capability to replace loses.
How can this be modeled in a game like Arma for a MP TvT session/mission:
- Together with objectives make a death threshold for both sides (if that threshold is surpassed than that side will lose the game/mission). The "death threshold" for the weaker/guerrila side would be much higher than the one for the "stronger side". Basically the main objective for the weaker/guerrila side could be to inflict considerable loses on the enemy while the stronger side much acomplish several sets of tactical and strategical objectives in order to win the mission.

Actually this is what actually happens in my favourite RTS game - Combat mission Shock Force which is the most realistic RTS ever made (at least IMO).


But in the case of ArmA3 and since this game scenario will be a futuristic and near-sci-fi (IMO completly sci-fi) I wouldn't surprise a bit to see completly balanced units for both sides!

[Timnos]

Also the "weaker side" could potentialy have more manpower imediatly available (in terms of infantry) and will certainly have a much bigger capability to replace loses.!

Immediately available? If what you are trying to say is that Guerrilla forces can instantly rush reinforcements into battle within the time frame of a 30 minute - 2 hour firefight, well NATO forces can also bring in reinforcements within that time frame.

[Victor]

Immediately available? If what you are trying to say is that Guerrilla forces can instantly rush reinforcements into battle within the time frame of a 30 minute - 2 hour firefight, well NATO forces can also bring in reinforcements within that time frame.

What exactly is realistic about "Warfare" anyway? Two teams with $0 dollars take control of towns controlled by brainless AI to somehow find money within those towns to build a state of the art army that pops out from (literally) thin air. It's a double standard so many people place on "authenticity" that really makes a tear come to my eye.

[DMarkwick]

What exactly is realistic about "Warfare" anyway? Two teams with $0 dollars take control of towns controlled by brainless AI to somehow find money within those towns to build a state of the art army that pops out from (literally) thin air. It's a double standard so many people place on "authenticity" that really makes a tear come to my eye.

I shouldn't worry about it. There are some people who will read a phrase like "possibility of balanced gameplay" and replace it with "all war should be fair and balanced all the time"

[zamani532]

Multiplayer is supposed to be based around skill not equipment, anything else isn't fair/not worth playing.

[Hellfire257]

Skill can be a measure of anything, including using what little you have to its maximum effectiveness against a superior force.

[zamani532]

Skill can be a measure of anything, including using what little you have to its maximum effectiveness against a superior force.

Balance can be anything, such as terrain being balanced in place of iron sighted equipment or for example giving the one faction a slight AA and artillery advantage if they lack air support.

If a multiplayer designer does not check these onto his list he is not a very good multiplayer designer.