Weapon Balance

[Purplehasiso]

So if every U.S. weapon was used by only the U.S. team and vice versa for the russin team, would it be balanced?

I personally dont believe so but im not familiar with every weapon in the game.

[tjzil]

I do not have Arma 2 so I cannot answer from a game perspective.

Seeing as this is a simulator, I dont think balance was BI's main focus. But I can see why you would want balance for some gametypes.

Well I think if you are carefull in your selection of the weapons you could make it balanced.

[Celery]

You get killed so easily by any weapon that their differences are a matter of preference. Almost all weapons have equivalents on the other side.

[Purplehasiso]

What about the javelin or VSS? The javelin is a one of a kind(major advantage for U.S.). Im not sure that the U.S. has a silenced sniper rifle, but if they didnt then it would be an advantage for the Russians then but not moreso than a javgelin.

[Inkompetent]

"Balance through unbalance." Different weapons will encourage different styles of play, but will also have to be taken in mind by the mission (since OPFOR probably won't have advantage in numbers they need to be able to get closer through concealment to get their AKs in range).

And just remove the lol-ACOG and stuff from the weapons and the BLUFOR will have a harder time as well, since they too are limited to ironsights, making long range accuracy (seeing impact points and stuff) quite a lot harder.

[Murklor]

Are we talking about a free-for-all selection or limited classes?

Free for all would probably be pretty balanced in the infantry section since 90% of the teams will carry SVD+RPG or DMR+SMAW. The balance of the other weapons is irrelevant. A few will carry machineguns which are infantry killers but wont carry any RPG/SMAW. The rest will either be fools or gimp themselves on purpose, either way they cannot be counted.

With a limited class selection we're talking about a whole other situation... With most units being riflemen, the M16/4 vs AK series would probably be fairly balanced since it will depend more on position and superiority rather than your DMR sight and standoff range. I do miss this in Arma 2, need to play less Domination :/

[NkEnNy]

DMR
Take the west sniper initially a five round 7.62.x51mm Bolt Action. Give it a dual setting scope (one good for CQB, the other equal to the sniper rifle). Give it a 20 round box magazine and a semi-auto rate of fire. Oh, and retain the accuracy.

By the almighty FSM.. Having said that I don’t think the DMR is fundamentally unbalanced; it just the weapon best adapted to the typical ARMA2 engagement ranges and situations. Particularly coop, but it carries over reasonably well for pbp situations.

Assault and Field craft
Even so I find it surprisingly possible to do well at closer ranges (sub-200), provided you’ve got the patience to get there, in tooth and nail PvP. To a large part because the many PvPers are so accustomed to long engagement ranges. They don’t expect you to pop up within comparatively close distances.

They key here is field craft. Utilizing your terrain to maximum advantage. The imperative is NOT getting tunnel vision. Just as you are exploiting the tunnel vision of others, you must guard your own flank. I find simply not taking a scope the easiest way to accomplish this, but each to his own.


In the end…
Arma2 isn’t a balanced game. It shouldn’t be and was probably never meant to be.


- k

[whisper]

Are we talking about a free-for-all selection or limited classes?

Free for all would probably be pretty balanced in the infantry section since 90% of the teams will carry SVD+RPG or DMR+SMAW. The balance of the other weapons is irrelevant. A few will carry machineguns which are infantry killers but wont carry any RPG/SMAW. The rest will either be fools or gimp themselves on purpose, either way they cannot be counted.

With a limited class selection we're talking about a whole other situation... With most units being riflemen, the M16/4 vs AK series would probably be fairly balanced since it will depend more on position and superiority rather than your DMR sight and standoff range. I do miss this in Arma 2, need to play less Domination :/

Well, I'd argue keeping a good ol' M4ACOG-M203 or XM8 + GL vs DMR, depending on terrain feature. If I'm not in the open, forced for 200+m engagements, I'd use the former 2 guns over DMR, if you ask me, a GL is always handy, and full auto in real CQB mayhem can help (in PvP).
+ compared to real sniper rifle, DMR does low damage at long range

And w/ limits, well.... I'm less confortable with the AK, I find Kobra sights not helpfull in-game (like Holo sights, I don't know how helpfull they are IRL, but in-game.... well, smtg's not good). I prefer Aimpoint.
Same with ACOG vs PSO, but in this case, it's more a question of experience with both, I've used far more ACOG than PSO in A2, so I'm simply not used to PSO anymore.
So all in all, I find US infantry weapons better, for me.

[Sirex1]

The automatic carbine on the soldiers really dose'nt matter, what matter is how many machinguns you have.

[Heatseeker]

The weapons are more or less balanced, its just that everyone runs around with DMR's and SMAW's. The DMR is just way overpowered.

M16A4, AK74 and AK107, betwean the 3 and all their variants you can find a balance.