Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[NoRailgunner]

batto - looking forward to be pissed off by your own addon/mods!! As for your examples - thermal/portable launchers are already ingame. Or do you mean that only certain Blufor/OPFOR AT launchers should have the same weight, same max effective weapon range, same armour penetration and the same thermal viewing range limits? Something veryvery simple like Blufor light AT = OPFOR light AT and Blufor heavy AT = OPFOR heavy AT....

[Pathetic_Berserker]

2 Celery: What do you know about military and their "fair" and "balanced" assets + R&D's? Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse??

Well if by 'fair' and 'balanced' you mean tit for tit. We know thats quite probable. Military development usually works on the philosophy of countering or equaling the opponent. Those areas where Western arms seem further advanced ie, robotics and unmanned vehicles and smarter stuff that goes bang, tend to be counter to the idea of creating tension and having fun in game so would probably be avoided in the type of mission wich hasn't gone all tacticool and spazed out on asymetrical coop leetism. ie whats so wrong with folks wanting some gladitorial TvT on your precious A3.

Again: Is it still so hard and difficult to write down some clear suggestions/examples of "balanced assets" for an authentic + awesome A3? Or is it better to stay in the nebulous circle of "balanced assets" ??

I'll agree there and after raising this point my self (post #345) I went back and took a look at the confirmed features thread and realised I wasn't even sure what side BIS had intendend the assets for! Also clearly a lack of counter assets for the vehicles listed.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

Woah, is this thread still going?

Through the prism of ArmA II: remove bullshit assets like the Tunguska, replace it with something comparable M6 Linebacker; F35 / A-10 vs Su-34 / Su-25 LULWUT? If people really wanted to have the latest NATO toys, then Su-34 should've been replaced with Su-27 superiority fighter and Su-25 -> Su-30 for multi-role bomber, add some decent scopes for OPFOR and voila.

And I don't think people would be objecting to the above. Nobody wants to mirror one side's technology, just use the appropriate unit classes (Tunguska vs. HMV Avenger in vanilla ArmA II back in 2009 was a major clusterfvck) for fuck's sake!

End of rine.

[Qazdar]

They really have a lot of possibilities with ArmA 3 knowing the contest and the era in which is t's taking place ! unless they have some licensing problems .

[Iroquois Pliskin]

They really have a lot of possibilities with ArmA 3 knowing the contest and the era in which is t's taking place ! unless they have some licensing problems .

KA-MI-69 HAMOK Helicopters suffer of no such problem.

P.S. Although Israel might send in the Mossad to *patch* the game and remove Merkava from Iran's hands.

[Chortles]

Woah, is this thread still going?

It's the (terrible) gift that keeps on giving, thanks to zingers like this:

Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse??

Does he know that we can already do this in ARMA 2 and even moreso (Celery, please pass my compliments to whoever implemented tactical pace*) in ARMA 3?

Seriously though Iroquois, I think what a bunch of people were trying to say is that if there's a real-world counterpart in roles and similar capabilities, then both BLUFOR and OPFOR (should) get one, even if their stats aren't identical... but close enough.

For example, if there's a real-world MBT with TI whose overall capabilities are similar to those of the BLUFOR MBT, then throw it in on the OPFOR side and make up some story about why Iran has them in 2035... oh wait, that sounds like the Merkava! (Since the Mark IIB variant, but then BI can just state that the Iranian OPFOR has Mark IIB or later variants.) Ditto for the Mk 20 (F2000) as a counterpart to the CTAR-21 as 5.56 x 45 mm bullpup rifles with similar barrel lengths, which both support on-the-fly swapping of the optics (collimator, 4x/reflex, NV and "sniper"), flash suppressors and sound suppressors, plus mounting weaponlights or aiming lasers. (Of course, how the MX 6.5 mm will perform in-game is unknown.)

This isn't exactly rocket science people!

* If it was you, high five to you Celery.

Me too. And there's nothing you can do about it. Hell, I'll learn modding just for sake of pissing you off. Seriously. I'll try to do as much as I can to bring CS, BF and CoD kiddies to those potential fun ArmA mods (imagine how many of them will contribute to this forum, yay!).

I wish to be your Internet friend, may I PM you about the subject? (Or alternately, PM with what you have in mind for "those potential fun ArmA mods" along "CS, BF and CoD kiddies" lines)

The more you'll cry about it, more happy I will be.

Insufficient, we need MORE reactionaries' tears.

[VampyricTyrant]

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.

yeah comeptition, thats whay we need the game to get E-Sport.
the basic problem with people is that they feel this way:

[Kristian]

Why is this thread still here? D:
This is pretty much a worthless discussion, ArmA cannot ever be balanced, its up to those who make missions. Even if every side in the game had exactly same equipment, with
same stats, the mission maker can make the Blue side have 100 tanks and red 10 tanks, and again, the mission is out of balance. Besides, balance is boring, being on the red side
in my example would be exiting, having to use some tactics to win the battle, and after the smoke settles, see who is alive, where they are, or if anyone is alive at all.

But, balance is in ArmA in its own way, once again, up to the mission editor.
PvP missions can have just infantry, everyone with same weapon, in a symmetric map, and it'd be just as balanced as any other game (lol, how about some Team Fortress?)

My explanation here is very unclear and confusing, but I hope that those who bothered to read it really understood what I meant.

[Cookie114]

It would be nice to see some balance..

[Celery]

This is pretty much a worthless discussion, ArmA cannot ever be balanced, its up to those who make missions. Even if every side in the game had exactly same equipment, with same stats, the mission maker can make the Blue side have 100 tanks and red 10 tanks, and again, the mission is out of balance.

Let me get this straight.

What you don't want:
10 tanks vs. 10 tanks = balanced
100 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced

What you want:
10 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced
100 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced

Did I get it right? Or was your point that even when given a foolproof solution, those incompetent pvp mission makers would still derp out and put 100 tanks against 10 when trying to make a balanced mission?

PvP missions can have just infantry, everyone with same weapon, in a symmetric map, and it'd be just as balanced as any other game (lol, how about some Team Fortress?)

What do you think most pvp missions in the Arma series already are, thanks to the current state of things? Why do you suggest measures that are among the reasons why people have been asking for a balanced array of assets in the first place?