Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[[FRL]Myke]

let me break this to you, Arma is a bit away from being a Mil Sim

From all FPS games out there that could be at least vaguely comparable, BI tries to get closest to a sim of all.

When i follow patchnotes from other games, i see this:

weapon configs adjusted for balancing

while at BI i see this

weapon configs adjusted to be closer to realistic behaviour

This tells me something about what BI tries to achieve. While they might have a eye on PvP, their main goal remains to be authentic. If they succeed or fail is another topic.

And i really, really dislike it to see other shooters taken as reference to compare ArmA with. Even more since i've watched a BF3 vid on YT where a player got into a vertical climb in a fighter plane, then jumps out of cockpit (still in climb), turns around and shoot the enemy plane behind him with his rifle and then get back into the cockpit and continue his flight. At this point i felt off my chair, LMFAO and closed the vid, asking myself how people can play such a crap.

So, ArmA might fall a little short as a sim compared to DCS products or other flight sims, but it is lightyears ahead of any other FPS actually available.

[Timnos]

It's impossible to balance MP mission's when playing against me, my team has massive advantage due to my exceptional tactical skills from playing ArmA all the time.

[neokika]

in "Il2" my plane has wight, my gun can be shot off, a million things can go wrong, in DCS my helicopter as complex engine management, proper and correct weapon systems firing procedure. Arma has group hit points, right click lock kill weapon systems, infinity range IR scopes. and in vanila u can have a solder with 3 thousand machine gun rounds and an AT for good measure.

Hi,

For DCS-A10, you pay 50€ to be able to fly one vehicle...Need to say more?
Last thing Arma 3 needs is an artificial balance like in mainstream games.

[Celery]

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.

[Defunkt]

I think balance is absolutely vital but don't see why it means both sides have to have comparable equipment. How much does an M1 cost to manufacture in RL? How many export versions of the T-90 can be purchased for the same money? More I'm sure. Reflect that in game, give one side quality and the other side quantity, as much quantity as is needed to create balance. That way you get balance, more realism and immersion (because you're better reflecting the real world) and more nuanced missions (both sides have to be played differently).

[metalcraze]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

I played my share of PvP too. An asymmetrical one as well. Like in one mission we had regular army troops with superior equipment vs. takiban. Takiban won actually - by sneaking around into our rear instead of charging a well defended position of ours (but they had some guys shooting at us once in a while to make us shoot back and focus on these decoys). Guys on an underdeveloped team simply adapted to their conditions and used them to best advantage (we expected a more direct firefight vs. them and they knew it).

[neokika]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

Exactly.

[dunnobe]

Agreed metalcraze. Look at PR Insurgency missions, the BLUFOR have all kinds of fancy guns, but it' still hard to win for them due to OPFOR tactics and the mission.

[SirScorpion]

@ Myke
Its funny that the point a criticized is exactly what you come back as a counter argument. let me clarify it for you and with all intended respect. the people who compare "what arma is" to other games ARE the Arma community most of the time, such arrogance, and fandom from the Leaders and moderators when it comes to questions about MP always result with the same 3 arguments (this is a Mil sim, war is not fair, My team is better than yours, Its the mission makers fault)

now stepping back, just for a second taking it as a person who enjoys Arma since OPF; i take 3 points out of this which if i solve i can Greatly enhance the game, make it popular with Mplay instead of what has now become a fragmented toy box.

1. a Standard MP game, warfare comes close, this is a great system and Idea for casual and hardcore, covers a wide range of possible interactions and using almost every thing the game can offer in a single serving. a standard game mode increase the game popularity, but it needs to be balanced, and by balanced i mean in the most "milsim" way possible, a proper Mil-Sim or "Realistic" game will take more options into account, taking the example of one of the posters here about the Tiger tank which had "120mm" not 180mm armor as a perfect example, is the tiger Fair? yes, 100%, it was a a bad tank on a strategic level, it was slow, prone to huge amount of breake down, a logistical nightmare, costs the same amount as 2 panther tanks, and almost 10 T34 tanks, not only that it was soo complex and used huge amount of time ending up in the production of 1350 tanks Only! while T34 was over 70k added to that another 70k Sherman tanks and about 4k IS heavy tanks.

MY point is what you think is not Fair is a matter of fact Fair. T72 and BMP are crap and death traps, yes we all know that however non of those where used in proper doctrine, the USSR tank Divisions estimated the life expectancy of a Spear Head t72 attack into Europe will be around 11min, they knew that, but it was acceptable in the larger picture b/c they can build 5 to 1 NATO advanced tank. balance does not mean symmetrical you need to take EATCH and every eliminate and "simulate" it in game, How much you want to do that depends on how much "Fidelity" i Do not however argue of high fidelity as that will cost a bit, however a whatever is needed to balance the game from a fidelity point of view needes to be integrated into the "Standard MP" which BIS wants the game to run.


2. Make it more Milsim, by both the Devs and the mod makers, how? a standardization document by the Devs to what are the "wish list of tools", how they should act, and what level of realism should be standard.

3.If both the above are taken into consideration and standard MP game is adopted then a Team/Clan stats system tracking must be in place, and not for what it is used now to unlock fluff, but to help teams find fair teams to battle instead of noob stomping people out of the game.

i played a lot of games which where balanced and not symmetrical, Men of War "*Assault squad" is a great example, a facing factions are so different, yet the games are brutality balanced, with a little smart thinking that can be achieved, lots of mods and other game mods, but there is a Standard game mod which you play competitively.

and Myke, what happens if i shoot a house with a grenade launcher or tank in Arma? does it lose HP? i saw a vid of a dude shooting a house with a tank and it didn't make a hole in it?! "see what i did there"

take it easy and cheers o7

[GiorgyGR]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

Nope..plain wrong-because the setup of ESL or ESL-style matches (and lots of us are eager for this) doesn't work this way-and IF you love ARMA-you want to see it participate in ESL (again)