Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Timnos]

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

You have never been more wrong.

[Messiah]

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)

So for the sake of ESL matches, we should forego all sensibilities and perfectly balance both sides, regardless of realism? And should we not think so, we therefore do not love ArmA?

Yes, there will at least be rigorous mission-side balancing in Arma 3's multiplayer.

Which is predominantly editor side balancing, no? Balancing missions to reflect an inbalance in sides is a perfectly reasonable request/solution, that or design the missions in such a way that the the 'lesser' side gains certain advantages if they play to their strengths. Balancing the actual units in the game is the main point of contention here. Should BIS do that, they've sold their soul quite frankly.

[JdB]

The only problem was always with the heavy tanks and their toughness - western tanks were always superior to eastern and that usually hurt. But I believe even this can be compensated easily by a mission maker.

Historically speaking during the cold war the ratio of tanks was 3 - 1 in favor of the Soviets, even more so outside of Europe, but many were older vehicles and in many cases technologically inferiour. Many nations will still be able to field more tanks than the US early on in a conflict, especially if the conflict is happening unexpectedly and far away from the main US bases. Putting in a larger number of Soviet/Russian/OFPOR tanks is a good way to balance a mission, making the vehicles perform like the western counterparts is not imo, it has nothing to do with ArmA gameplay.

[[FRL]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)

First, let me point out that i've stated a personal opinion. It wouldn't be any different without the Moderator status. Just to clarify.

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.

Which in facts means, BI should make the assets as realistic as possible and Missionmakers have to keep an eye to the balancing. IIRC this is exactly what BI does. Ofc they will fall short at some point as making it 100% accurate, ti would need much more personel, money, information sources and whatnot. There are limits how far they can go.

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.

Don't quite get what you mean but i blame it on my lacking knowledge of the english language. I would appreciate it if you could explain, if you don't mind.

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.

Personally i don't think that BI has the financial or personel resources to build and administer the required infrastructure. But this isn't much more than a educated guess.

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"

Well, my guess is, if BI would include absolutely everything that would make A3 being a 100% accurate milsim with every detail, i'm absolutely positive that we could run the game on NASA high end supercomputer with stunning 5 frames per second.

[metalcraze]

You have never been more wrong.

Am I?

Also what are you trying to say exactly with those videos?

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"

In DCS A-10 I saw a house being shot with Warthog's MG and there was no hole. See what I did thar

[Iroquois Pliskin]

ArmA 2 at launch was balanced... Until people discovered the 256M-Tunguska, which could neutralise all air threats within 7 km radius (No CM flares at that time FTL), along with being able to take out M1A2 TUSK tanks with its 30 mm cannons in under 8 seconds, or several hundred rounds. (hitpoint system FTL).

We're talking core systems, not AK74 w/ ironsights vs an M16 with an ACOG-type balance. A single vehicle can break the game - make sure it doesn't happen in ArmA III.

[Messiah]

In fairness, a huge part of that is down to the archaic hit-point system.

[DMarkwick]

The usual hysteria and dick-waving seriously folks, try acting like rational beings

I've seen a few rational posts here though, from the usual rational people, and the usual irrational posts from the usual irrationals

1. Balance comes from mission design.

2. There should be the possibility to make a balanced mission

[Iroquois Pliskin]

In fairness, a huge part of that is down to the archaic hit-point system.

TAB+Click mechanics with such powerful weapon systems as the Tunguska doesn't help either.

[Messiah]

TAB+Click mechanics with such powerful weapon systems as the Tunguska doesn't help either.

True, true.

The usual hysteria and dick-waving

It's what sets us apart from the Chimps.