Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[-=Grunt=-]

I think "Balance" in ArmA would be more like having counter-parts, not exact same copies, each with their own thing while still being realistic.

Like if BLUFOR has an IFV, REDFOR needs to have some sort of IFV too. Or if REDFOR has some kind of transport/attack hybrid chopper, BLUFOR needs to have a chopper with more or less the same capability too.

[antoineflemming]

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something??


Really, since when or where did I say that the ALL units or ALL KIND of units in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA are balanced?
As far as I know the title of this thread is "Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?" so this thread as far as I know or understood (but I admit that I haven't read all the 20+ pages of this thread) is regarding any possible balancing (making both sides as equal as possible) in future ArmA3 (and consequently other possible future 'milsim' products based on ArmA3).
Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example).

I also agree that making the game more realistic such as remove the instantaneous 'TAB' locking key could in the end make the game:
1- More realistic.
2- And also more 'balancing' because with the instantaneous "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" any "rookie" can kill dozens of enemies - In real life systems like the Apache gunship helicopters are extremely deadly but they require lots of training hours for a pilot/crewman to be effective with this helicopter (the same applies to any other weapon system such as tanks, airplanes, etc...).

But one must also be carefull by simply removing "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" -> The lock key in a gunship helicopter simulates the pilot ordering it's gunner (in case it's an AI) to lock the next available target. Perhaps more than simply removing the "instantaneous 'TAB' locking key" is to make the weapons behaviour much more realistic like for example in order for a laser guided missile (Hellfire for example) or SACLOS missile (AT-6 for example) to hit it's intended target that same target must always be locked (unit the missile hits the target) or else the missile would fail to hit the intended target. If a missile such as the Hellfire is already flying towards a target and the player changes the target than the missile would follow the new target (with the risk of not having enough 'energy' to reach the new target).

Well once again you misunderstand what balancing means, which is what Celery was saying. Balancing doesn't mean a T-90 performs the same as a M1 Abrams, with the exact same specs. Balancing means each side is actually of overall comparable strength. Individual specs may not match up (Iranian tank possibly a bit better than Nato tank) but overall each side has similar assets and in similar quantity (as in iran tank and nato tank, iran fast mover, nato fast mover, iran underwater vehicle, nato underwater vehicle). As in, one side isn't drastically an underdog. As in its not asymmetric warfare. Most wars have been conventional. When dealing with arguably two superpowers, such a war between them would be conventional, not asymmetric. Sure, fighting asymmetric battles in ArmA2 may be more challenging, but more challenging doesn't necessarily equal more realistic. Simply, balancing doesn't mean that each side'sside's technology is exactly the same, with a different look. It basically means comparable strength. So like a T-90 and an M1 Abrams. They aren't carbon copies, but each side has that kind of an asset. And don't forget, part of balancing is making sure that each side has technology fitting for the time period. Some complaints about ArmA2's Russians was that they had Soviet weapons basically. And, as has been said, as long as BIS stays true to realism with the technology and factions, there wont be any need for balancing for MP. The factions will automatically balance out.

[Celery]

Are you having some sort of mental menstruation or something??

+2 for insulting a forum member.

Regarding this my oppinion is clear and simple: the 'balancing' should be similar to OFP/ArmA/ArmA2/ArmA2:OA which is to say, Almost NONE or NO balancing at all (each sides have their own strenghts and weakeness). If there is to be some 'balancing' to be made this should be based on REAL or REALISTIC facts (such as the one that I mentioned) and never by balancing units (making a M1 Abrams with the exact same features/capabilities than a T-90 for example).

Like I've already said, group B assumes too much about the agenda and motives of group A, probably something to do with hasty conclusions without actually reading what's up.

The whole issue here is which assets are put in the game to begin with, not how they are simulated from a balancing standpoint. That's why I urged you to read post #60, because it shows quite clearly how balancing has been done in the past three titles. So balancing, in Operation Flashpoint's case, would be having the T-80 instead of the T-72 as the best tank that the Soviets have. Arma 1 is poorly balanced because OPFOR's best (and only) tank is the T-72 going against the M1A1, the only tank that BLUFOR has. Are you starting to see what this is all about?

[zamani532]

Its because BIS does not care about OPFOR, every single fucking DLC has been Blufor, PMC are basically blufor.

[NeuroFunker]

Its because BIS does not care about OPFOR, every single fucking DLC has been Blufor, PMC are basically blufor.

well why should they? BIS are from Czech Republic, Czech Republic is NATO, NATO is Bluefor, so yeah, why should they care much about their potential enemies?

If BIS would implement in ARMA 2, anything opfor had to offer, larger weaponry, dynamic armor and SHTORA various tank defence systems, opfor actually would be in slight advantage over bluefor.

[zamani532]

well why should they? BIS are from Czech Republic, Czech Republic is NATO, NATO is Bluefor, so yeah, why should they care much about their potential enemies?

If BIS would implement in ARMA 2, anything opfor had to offer, larger weaponry, dynamic armor and SHTORA various tank defence systems, opfor actually would be in slight advantage over bluefor.

Because nobody likes the current bias as fuck direction they keep sliding towards.

[NeuroFunker]

Because nobody likes the current bias as fuck direction they keep sliding towards.

but funny thing, in Project Reality mod for example, opfor owns/owned about 70% matches, with ak-74's and few SVD's only. So it's not always about balance, but about skills. It's even a bigger shame, that more high technical equiped team, loses to outdated ones.

[NoRailgunner]

There is no such "balance" in real military R&D, combat tactics & strategies - its only in those minds of some pvp players who are uberafraid of a unfair A3 pvp battles. Every military is in fact trying to outrun the other, be more advanced in certain areas and improve others. How many aircraft carriers/fleets the US have - how many have Russia or China or Iran? How much ahead are certain countries in developments in eg sensor, radar or UAV/SUAS developments/tech? Its just a very naive to assume that everything has something like a "balanced" or "equal" counterpart or "must have". Now, would it be that bad and evil if BIS will create and make things somewhat unique to each side/faction and not comparable or balanced/equal? Until today there are no authentic/realistic examples of possible balanced A3 units/assets from those who want them. Just wonder if these people did ever inform themselves about military stuff or if they are just happy with some CS/BF style + maps/missions? Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

[NeuroFunker]

Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

to make it more enjoyable for everyone? If 1 team has bigger advantage over other, and everyone knows that, who would want to play in weaker team? Only freaks perhaps.

[Celery]

There is no such "balance" in real military R&D, combat tactics & strategies - its only in those minds of some pvp players who are uberafraid of a unfair A3 pvp battles. Every military is in fact trying to outrun the other, be more advanced in certain areas and improve others. How many aircraft carriers/fleets the US have - how many have Russia or China or Iran? How much ahead are certain countries in developments in eg sensor, radar or UAV/SUAS developments/tech? Its just a very naive to assume that everything has something like a "balanced" or "equal" counterpart or "must have". Now, would it be that bad and evil if BIS will create and make things somewhat unique to each side/faction and not comparable or balanced/equal? Until today there are no authentic/realistic examples of possible balanced A3 units/assets from those who want them. Just wonder if these people did ever inform themselves about military stuff or if they are just happy with some CS/BF style + maps/missions? Again - why BIS should be forced to balance all the things (incl. faction/assets) in A3?

Read this:

Like I've already said, group B assumes too much about the agenda and motives of group A, probably something to do with hasty conclusions without actually reading what's up.

The whole issue here is which assets are put in the game to begin with, not how they are simulated from a balancing standpoint. That's why I urged you to read post #60, because it shows quite clearly how balancing has been done in the past three titles. So balancing, in Operation Flashpoint's case, would be having the T-80 instead of the T-72 as the best tank that the Soviets have. Arma 1 is poorly balanced because OPFOR's best (and only) tank is the T-72 going against the M1A1, the only tank that BLUFOR has. Are you starting to see what this is all about?