Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Celery]

Don't turn this game/sim into some COD reskinned M4 fest please, let the balancing be done intelligently and not using the book "Balancing for Dummies".

What gives you the idea that putting the right kind of selection of comparably performing, realistically portrayed vehicles and weapons into the game to create plausible balance is unintelligent? Is Operation Flashpoint's weapon and vehicle balance (refer to post #60) stupid?

If you don't like your sides odds, why not do the ultimate balancing and swap sides after a match. Then you get to try out both sides, you might even find you enjoy being the underdog.

A side switcheroo is a clan war thing for 20-30 minute rounds, something that hasn't exactly been popular in the franchise for the past four or five years, and even when it was, it was done purely to negate possible terrain advantages that one side may have had; both sides were usually given the same array of weapons because the OPFOR selection frankly sucked in Arma 1 and because everyone was so in love with the G36 in OFP. It doesn't quite work in bigger one-off battles or large-scale pvp campaigns, not to mention public games. An underdog scenario shouldn't be impossible to make even if both sides had balanced assets: you just give one side less or inferior assets.

[Liquidpinky]

What gives you the idea that putting the right kind of selection of comparably performing, realistically portrayed vehicles and weapons into the game to create plausible balance is unintelligent? Is Operation Flashpoint's weapon and vehicle balance (refer to post #60) stupid?

That would be more of the intelligent balancing. I am not against units opposing units with similar performance, but when they become a copy paste of stats for each other it gets silly.
All I ask is for a little diversity.

A side switcheroo is a clan war thing for 20-30 minute rounds, something that hasn't exactly been popular in the franchise for the past four or five years, and even when it was, it was done purely to negate possible terrain advantages that one side may have had; both sides were usually given the same array of weapons because the OPFOR selection frankly sucked in Arma 1 and because everyone was so in love with the G36 in OFP. It doesn't quite work in bigger one-off battles or large-scale pvp campaigns, not to mention public games. An underdog scenario shouldn't be impossible to make even if both sides had balanced assets: you just give one side less or inferior assets.

I understand that some matches can even go on for days in realtime, but in the end they can still swap sides to give it a shot the next time the decide to play.

The more diversity, the more tactics you will need to learn and can learn. Same versus same will teach you a thing or two, but mixing it up will teach you more.
Personally I would like to see both symmetrical and asymmetrical scenarios, then you get the best of both worlds.

[crazyjake56]

That would be more of the intelligent balancing...
All I ask is for a little diversity.

That's what everyone was asking for the whole time.

[Timnos]

I am not against units opposing units with similar performance, but when they become a copy paste of stats for each other it gets silly.

I don't think anyone here would argue with that. Ideally each forces weapons should have their own distinct qualities, but neither force should have an arsenal that is superior to the others. We need an effective OPFOR with teeth.

[NoRailgunner]

Its the game who decides to place units on the map/island or the mission maker?

[Chortles]

I believe that this thread was SUPPOSED to be about what units/vehicles/equipment would be in the Editor for the mission maker to choose from in the first place (to place onto the island) WITHOUT addons...

[DMarkwick]

Its the game who decides to place units on the map/island or the mission maker?

Exactly but the possibility of balanced gameplay should be possible. That is, roughly balanced assets, not precisely balanced assets. As you hinted at above, a possibility of balanced gameplay does not mean that the balanced assets will jump out of the editor and into your mission

[Chortles]

Exactly but the possibility of balanced gameplay should be possible. That is, roughly balanced assets, not precisely balanced assets. As you hinted at above, a possibility of balanced gameplay does not mean that the balanced assets will jump out of the editor and into your mission

I'd add to this with three qualifiers: The possibility of 'balanced' gameplay:
#1: Without any addons required, only using "vanilla ARMA 3" (just like how ARMA 2: Free is limited).
#2: Without the mission maker having to be creative.
#3: Without the players of a faction having to be so much more tactically proficient (by a certain amount) than players of an opposing faction in order to stand a chance.

Example: Don't throw a T-72 against a M1A2, throw a Merkava against a M1A2!

EDIT: I just saw a screenshot of an ARMA 3 Iranian marksman from earlier this month, using an EBR with the "ARCO" optic from the E3 2011 version of ARMA 3... no idea what that means for "ARMA 3 game balance," but here it is.

[Timnos]

Its the game who decides to place units on the map/island or the mission maker?

Put it this way, most players on both opposing teams will want to use weapons that they consider are the best for gaining an advantage in combat. Now if for arguments sake BLUFOR's' arsenal is ridiculously superior to OPFOR's arsenal, then most people will play as BLUFOR, but for MP to thrive we also need lot's of people to play as OPFOR.
For the people who disfavour the idea of weapons balancing because they prefer to play as the "underdog", the logical solution is to not select the best weapons available to your force.

[Liquidpinky]

Put it this way, most players on both opposing teams will want to use weapons that they consider are the best for gaining an advantage in combat. Now if for arguments sake BLUFOR's' arsenal is ridiculously superior to OPFOR's arsenal, then most people will play as BLUFOR, but for MP to thrive we also need lot's of people to play as OPFOR.
For the people who disfavour the idea of weapons balancing because they prefer to play as the "underdog", the logical solution is to not select the best weapons available to your force.

Which I already do, I hope A3 has an Enfield available.