Warfare Balance Discussion

Forum for ArmA Discussion

Moderator: ArmA Admins

Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby MarkusNemesis » 6 Jul 12, 7:14 am

Hello everyone. As you may know, I've been playing BLUFOR recently, and I've observed a few points where balance is lacking.

(I'm aware that .72 warfare has fixed a few things, but it's not set in stone, so thus is exempt from the following)

Here are my findings.

1. Man portable AT
OPFOR:
Gear 1, RPG-7 with three RPG rounds available (why two when you'd only use the best one? Who knows, 320 damage VLs).
Gear 2, Get the SMAW with HEAA right off the bat instead of HEDP.
Gear 3, the metis which behaves just like the NLAW, but actually does damage.

BLUFOR:
Gear 1, AT4 (One shot use)
Gear 2, MAAWS with HEPD (can carry two rounds, 150 damage), NLAW (also two rounds, 1 if using INKO).
Gear 3, Javelin, which has a lulzy long lock time and is useless unless you have major range over the enemy.

In conclusion, the AT capability of BLUFOR is sorely lacking. With nothing but a disposable launcher as their main AT, then only to get two shot capable only AT after that, which isn't all that effective is also a letdown. Then the heavy AT pales in comparison to the metis.

2. Light factory
OPFOR:
LF 0, ???
LF 1, M113 ambo (invuln to small arms and terrain damage), BRDM-2 (14.5mm w/ 7.62 coax, invuln to small arms)
LF2, Vodnik ambo, ATGM BRDM, Vodnik BPPU
LF3, BTR-90(30mm Autocannon, 7.62 coax, AT-5 ATGM, AGS-17 GL), BM21-Grad

BLUFOR:
LF 0, GPK (.50 cal, vulnerable to small arms), Jackal (.50 cal, 7.62, vulnerable to small arms), Repair truck
LF 1, CROWS (mk. 19 or .50 cal, vulnerable to small arms), Ammo/fuel trucks,
LF 2, Ambo (vulnerable to small arms and terrain damage), TOW humvee, Another repair truck (???)
LF 3, Avenger (Poor AA capability, .50cal coax, vulnerable to small arms), LAV-25 (25mm, 7.62 coax.)

In conclusion, Initially, BLUFOR get a good start with the GPK, but, coupled with their lack of man portable AT mentioned above, it gets pwned by armour. The early access to the repair truck is nice, being able to set up TOWs to counter armour, though being a very costly practice and only really viable on Takistan (More on rep trucks later).

The lack of ambo access till light 2, and the invulnerable M113 leaves BLUFOR having to drive from base every 10 minutes rather problematic. They may have the GPK, but they have nowhere but base to spawn when they lose it. The ammo trucks makes using the repair truck less of a pain. OPFOR get the BRDM at LF1, with a 14.5mm main and 7.62 coax and has a fully protected crew to small arms thus quickly trumping the GPK, and with ambo support.

LF2 adds no real additions to the light factory for BLUFOR. The TOW Humvee is no match to the BRDM ATGM, due to it's vulnerable crew and low rate of fire. The Humvee ambo is no match for either the M113 or Vodnik because of how frail it is and it's vulnerability to fire.

The OPFOR side, they gain access to the BRDM ATGM (Fully protected crew, high rate of fire), The Vodnik BPPU, with a 30mm autocannon and 7.62 coax, AP and HE capable, it can provide fire support over 1.5 KMs away effectively. They gain yet another ambo, which has greater protection (No instapop tyres) and is also amphibious. The repair truck finally becomes available. Landrover SPG-9 gives high mobility AT and HE support, which BLUFOR do not have access to in either light nor gear. The BTR-60, just like the BRDM, but with larger troop carrying capacity. The Zeus Ural, great for fire support though vulnerable.

LF3 for BLUFOR gives the Avenger, which uses stingers (slow, short range, almost totally ineffective) with a high ROF .50 cal, making it a slightly amped up GPK. The LAV-25 is totally outmatched by the BTR-90. The BTR-90 has a high ROF 30mm Autocannon (AP/HE), ATGM and a GL, making it a mobile fortress. The armour values are the same, but overall, the LAV-25 and avenger are not worth going to light 3.

OPFOR get the above mentioned BTR-90 and the BM-21 Grad (Heavy rocket artillery that BLUFOR has to wait till heavy 3 for). OFPOR get no missile based AA via the light factory, but they get the Zeus Ural and the Vodnik BPPU, which is more than capable at taking out helicopters and other early air.

3. Heavy factory
OPFOR:
HF 0: T34!!! (MBT, 7.62mm frontgunner)
HF 1: ZSU (Zeus x2), BMP-2 (30mm Autocannon, 7.62mm coax, ATGM, 250 armour), T-55!!! (MBT)
HF 2: BMP-3 (100mm HE cannon, 30mm Autocannon, 3x 7.62mm guns, ATGM, 300 armour), T-72 (MBT, 690 Armour)
HF 3: T-90(800 Armour), Tunguska(Tung missiles).

BLUFOR:
HF 0: AAV (.50 cal, Mk.19), Stryker M2/Mk.19 (lol, 160 Armour)
HF 1: Bradley A1(ATGM, 25mm gun, 7.62mm coax, 300 armour), Stryker MEV (Ambo, 160 Armour).
HF 2: M1A1 (MBT, 850 Armour), Bradley A2(400 Armour)
HF 3: M1A2 (MBT, 900 Armour, loader 7.62mm), MLRS (finally, heavy rocket artillery), Linebacker (Tung missiles)

In conclusion, OPFOR get much better anti tank and protective units straight away, with the T-34 at HF 0, capable of taking any form of resistance armour if used right as well as fantastic anti infantry with HE and front gunner. The T-55 is a step up with even greater AT and anti-infantry, more armour but one less 7.62mm gun. The BMP-3 has gained notoriety as a fantastic ATGM platform, as well as HE platform for anti infantry. It's a good infantry transport with good survivability (300 armour) and more guns to know what to do with. HF2 and HF3 are fine in my opinion, with the T90's double tap of cannon and refleks, and the Tung and Linebacker balance, there's a surprising amount of balance here.

On the BLUFOR side, their HV 0 units are totally useless. The AAV is slow, big and has no AT capability. The Strykers are just over priced, over sized CROWS, bringing nothing new to the table. HV 1 adds a new ambulance which is less flimsy and a Bradley with it's 25mm gun and anti-terrain guided missile (Not a typo, 95% of the time I've used the TOW, it hit the ground right in front of me). The lack of viable selection, and the fact that we have light APCs (Strykers) in the heavy factory, really highlights the lack of AT (yet again) for BLUFOR. The Bradley, although having 50 more armour, is not much of a match for the BMP-2, the 5mm larger higher ROF, lower profile and better ATGM which is also half the price. When Strykers finally begin to become available, their roles are already totally surpassed by pre-existing, or then unlocked units. The MLRS is fine as heavy 3, as the rockets do 3x the damage of the Grad's.

4. Gear

Now, I know what you're thinking, "BLUFOR have the best gear, what are you on about?". Let me tell you what's up. You have access to TWS weapons way to soon. You have the Goshawk right away (take it off a taki TWS soldier, Barracks 0, save, done.). You have a battle rifle at G0 (FN FAL), and a Thermal battle rifle at G1 (FN FAL TWS). BLUFOR only get TWS at gear 3, sure a lot more TWS weapons, but, the FN FAL is already perfect. Either bring some entry level TWS down for BLUFOR, or raise the TWS up for OPFOR.

5. Repair trucks

Now, Basker has probably already made a reply about repair trucks before he's gotten this far into reading the OP, so, to most probably rebut his reply, the repair trucks for OPFOR simply have too many options. OPFOR gets the Zeus and the SPG-9, BLUFOR do not. BLUFOR don't have any comparable static weapon that can rival the range and ROF of the Zeus, and the AT/HE of the SPG-9. All we have is the TOW, which is only AT. Unless you feel like forking out 2k at the very start of the round for an M119 howitzer, or buy a TOW and an M2 and feel lucky, then go right on ahead. The repair truck rush of BLUFOR is pretty useless unless you have the ammo trucks to go with it (Or you could sploit and have the TOW backpack as your launcher in your gear and respawn over and over. Oh, wait, no ambo. *facedesk*).

So, what needs to happen is, either remove the SPG-9 and Zeus, or bring them over to BLUFOR as well.

So that's the end of my analysis of warfare as it stands in version .71. I plan to, in future, to edit the mission so that it's a bit more balanced (Don't worry, I'm not going to make AA pods fire tung missiles or make aircraft 1 billion dollars) and how I will do so, is outlined (not final) below.

MY SOLUTION:

Fix barracks upgrades so that they don't give gear that isn't available on the coinciding gear level. (eg, Thermal AK 74s are only available if the Barracks is at Barracks 2, just like Gear needs to be Gear 2. This operates totally independent of Gear level. So, you'll need either Gear 2, to buy the TWS AK conventionally, or, get it via Barracks 2, by getting the AI to drop it and you saving it into your gear.)

BLUFOR:
Launchers: (The following replaces all pre-existing launcher levels etc, what is here is what will be available)
Gear 0: AT4 (1x 315)
Gear 1: MAAWS: HEDP (150 damage x 2 = 300), SMAW: HEDP (150 damage x 3 = 450) // edit: Added SMAW to BLUFOR, but only the HEDP round will be available. This balances against the OPFOR's RPG-7's 3 V rounds in early game.
Gear 2: MAAWS: HEAT (480 damage x 2 = 960)
Gear 3: Javelin, NLAW

Gear:

Gear 3: Heavy TWS (7.62mm, Mk.17s, M107, M110, etc), Light TWS (5.56mm, Mk16s, M249)

Light:

LF0: M2 Humvee (No guard), M240 Humvee
LF1: GPK, Humvee Ambo, Jackal HMG, Repair truck/Ammo
LF2: Stryker MEV, M2, Mk.19, TOW. Humvee CROWS M2, Mk.19, Jackal GMG, Fuel truck
LF3: Stryker Mortar, Avenger, LAV-25 // edit: Due to having the Strykers, we can use them to counter the BTR-90, thus making it acceptable for OPFOR to have.
Removed: Humvee TOW, Terminal.

Heavy:

HF1: Stryker MGS
Strykers made into LF vehicles, to fill the roles of what OPFOR has in form of BTRs and BRDMs

OPFOR:

Launchers: (The following replaces all pre-existing launcher levels etc, what is here is what will be available)
Gear 0: RPG18 (1x 300)
Gear 1: RPG-7V (208 damage x3 = 624)
Gear 2: RPG-7VR (510 damage x 2 = 1020)
Gear 3: Metis , Dragon.

Gear:

Gear 3: FN FAL TWS, TWS SVD, TWS AK-74, M8 TWS

Light:

Leaving the same

Heavy:

HF0: M113 // Edit: Shilka moved back to HF1, only leaving the M113.
HF1: T34, T55, BMP-2, Shilka
HF2: T-72, BMP-3

Repair Trucks:

SPG-9 and Zeus removed.

And that's it. Please post your comments below, and please, only constructive criticism, not "Herp derp, everything's fine", because you obviously cannot read. I'm limiting a few options (namely AT) to create more creative thinking, and keeping the AT rounds to 2 rounds or less (hence no SMAW, though early RPGs are accepted, but their overall damage is within acceptable limits) and ultimately, it's all to get you thinking outside of the box again.

But upmost primarily, I'm doing this because BLUFOR rarely wins, and it's mainly due to Skill stacking on OPFOR, and the above noted imbalance issues. With my changes, it gives BLUFOR a fighting chance against the OPFOR vets, and makes the game more fun for all of us.

This post took me 5 hours to write, and is over 1,900 words. I've worked harder on this, than any Uni assignment I've had all semester, I've done my research by looking up unit stats on Dev-heaven and I've read through the mission code, so I'd appreciate it if you read it.

Thanks.

- Radioman.

KNOWN BUGS:

  • RPG VLs not fully removed in template loadouts
  • Shilkas are not from an independent faction so will give negative scores when killed by OPFOR
Last edited by MarkusNemesis on 18 Jul 12, 11:00 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Radioman
Warfare CORE Developer
Want a feature added to CORE? Make a feature request.
MarkusNemesis

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Jan 11, 4:57 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Freeborne » 6 Jul 12, 9:04 am

Warfare Rebalanced:
viewtopic.php?f=207&t=192941

5 hours? Try about 4 weeks and 50+ hours :P

We pretty much agree on everything and I've already implemented all those changes. I didn't remove the Zeus or SPG-9 from mobile repair trucks, but that's a good idea. Bugs in Unit_Balancing put that version on hold though.

UHAX has since picked up the project and ported most of my balancing changes across to his own version of Warfare. All my "Unit_Balancing" changes though are no longer necessary (Sky Monster will be happy about that) as we're using a newer version of Mando Missiles, which removes all the tab-locking noob-ness from aircraft. You get some pretty cool dog-fights now, and you can actually use evasive manoeuvring to dodge AA missiles, or make it harder for ground targets to acquire a lock.

You must play as the medic, because your ammo carrying capacities are off. For example the NLAW takes 3 slots. 3x3=9, leaving 3 slots to carry a 100 round MG36 magazine and a 30 round G36/Stanag. Throw in 8 HE rounds and you're set.


UHAX has also added a few more features from other version (such as WASP). No 3rd person view unless in a vehicle. No top-down Commander View (ever), repair tyres (like in Project Reality), towns aren't spawned by aircraft, more advanced AI for Resistance, etc. I really think GON regulars are going to go nuts over this version when it's complete. You might want to contact him if you're keen to help test it.
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 926
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby MarkusNemesis » 6 Jul 12, 9:10 am

Freeborne wrote:Warfare Rebalanced:
viewtopic.php?f=207&t=192941

5 hours? Try about 4 weeks and 50+ hours :P

Stuff.


I've seen this, but I'm more looking for a stopgap :) All the changes I gave are quick and simple, so it can be done in a day or less and have a big improvement.

I don't want to impede too much on the general gameplay of Warfare, I just want it balanced.
Radioman
Warfare CORE Developer
Want a feature added to CORE? Make a feature request.
MarkusNemesis

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Jan 11, 4:57 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby uncoitus interruptus » 6 Jul 12, 9:28 am

Freeborne wrote:No 3rd person view unless in a vehicle.


I dont see how this balances anything, it just makes vehicles even more OP vs infantry and static weapons and bases.

Also with inko the AT4 is a pretty powerful starting AT, load up a GPK or backpack with them and its not that hard to clear out armor. Dont know why opfor even gets the SMAW, just remove that or put it back in the blufor gear menu, its retarded.

Mandos is good until the server slows down later in the game, which completely breaks it.
uncoitus interruptus

User avatar
Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 66
Joined: 1 Nov 11, 5:18 am

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby MarkusNemesis » 6 Jul 12, 9:33 am

uncoitus interruptus wrote:
Freeborne wrote:No 3rd person view unless in a vehicle.


I dont see how this balances anything, it just makes vehicles even more OP vs infantry and static weapons and bases.

Also with inko the AT4 is a pretty powerful starting AT, load up a GPK or backpack with them and its not that hard to clear out armor. Dont know why opfor even gets the SMAW, just remove that or put it back in the blufor gear menu, its retarded.

Mandos is good until the server slows down later in the game, which completely breaks it.


Mando also scares people away.... We're a public server. If you're going to bring anything too complex, then keep it to the AUSArma server that's apparently running around / soon to be.

The AT4 is only slightly more powerful than the RPG18. And having INKO doesn't change how much damage it can do. You could just stock the car up with the rockets alone. It'd be cheaper :P
Radioman
Warfare CORE Developer
Want a feature added to CORE? Make a feature request.
MarkusNemesis

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Jan 11, 4:57 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Freeborne » 6 Jul 12, 9:57 am

The problem is more complex and goes deeper then just the factory build lists and a few prices. I tried to make my version modular. At it's basic level is just fixed the vehicle ordering in the factory lists and slight changes to the prices, just like you've done.

It was only with Unit_Balancing enabled did the weapon load-outs change on vehicles and the price changes become more significant. Then I realized there was still the issue that players were never rewarded for taking towns, so I increased the bounty for capping camps and depots. Commanders were exploiting the 100% tax system, so I had to set a limit of 25%. Concrete walls needed to be weaker ($40 and they took 6 sabots to destroy). Some parameters were broken and had to be removed (High Command, ISIS, 100 AI squad size, etc).

In the end, you realise you NEED to make all these changes to fix Benny's Edition. The problem is that too many changes at once are hard for GON regulars to understand. I'm in the same boat, trying to understand and accept the changes UHAX is making.

The good news is he's making it even more modular. There will be parameter "classes". These will have pre-defined parameter defaults, and some of these will have hard-coded values for prices, build lists, etc.

For example when you buy a KA52 it currently has two prices based on whether Unit_Balancing is on or off. If you're using Mando Missiles though, that completely changes aircraft and AA, so prices need to change. What good is a $100,000 KA52 if Missile Range is set to 500m? Why is the HMMV_Ambulance $725 if Mobile Respawn is off? Just more flaws in B.E that need fixing.

You can read up about Rebalanced, and the changes UHAX is making, or just spend another 20+ hours going through Benny Edition yourself, and then when you have all the answers, come back and compare. At least that way you will feel like our ideas were your ideas too. ;)

INKO can be added to the mission, so everyone has it. Removes any issues that way. Then you can price the AT4/NLAW/RPG18 appropriately. Performance shouldn't be an issue either. AI numbers are spawned dynamically based on server FPS. Towns don't spawn if you fly a jet over them also helps later in the game. Several other tweaks have also been done to improve performance and reduce server crashes.

Mando you make user-friendly with on-screen instructions on how to use it, and notes in the map menu....
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 926
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby MarkusNemesis » 6 Jul 12, 10:00 am

Freeborne wrote:Stuff.


I've read up on your project, and I've decided that I'd like to give it a swing myself. Nothing wrong with a little competition.

Let's just see how it goes :) So if we can, could we keep this thread on topic? Were' discussing the OP, not other projects.
Radioman
Warfare CORE Developer
Want a feature added to CORE? Make a feature request.
MarkusNemesis

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 337
Joined: 30 Jan 11, 4:57 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Goshawk » 6 Jul 12, 1:03 pm

Get a drink folks, this will be long!



Nice post mate, I read all of it. Just an FYI you should really post this up on DevHeaven under the BE page as well so that Benny actually reads it. Ok, now I’ll try and keep this in some form of structured response but I’m typing this up at work (snicker) so will probably be distracted many times while writing. It may also come out funny as I’m not writing in the forum response box.



Foreword:

I’m inclined to agree with you mate. I barely get time to even clock 30 minutes a week in warfare but when I do I see the same players on OpFor every night and it’s quickly becoming stale as the same parameters seem to be set every game by the same people who promptly **** if those parameters are different. I understand wanting to play with your mates but try changing the sides you’re on for once to change things up a bit and make a match into an actual challenge instead of the usual domination we see where those same players previously mentioned seemingly walk away thinking they have some element of skill instead of abusing the finer details of the mission to win.



Okay so here I go, I’ll address gear first:




1. Man portable AT
OPFOR:
Gear 1, RPG-7 with three RPG rounds available (why two when you'd only use the best one? Who knows, 320 damage VLs).
Gear 2, Get the SMAW with HEAA right off the bat instead of HEDP.

Gear 3, the metis which behaves just like the NLAW, but actually does damage.

BLUFOR:
Gear 1, AT4 (One shot use)
Gear 2, MAAWS with HEPD (can carry two rounds, 150 damage), NLAW (also two rounds, 1 if using INKO).
Gear 3, Javelin, which has a lulzy long lock time and is useless unless you have major range over the enemy.





OpFor – AT

Gear 0: RPG-18 is available and is a reasonably good early AT weapon if not a little difficult to aim

Gear 1: RPG-7 arrives and it is a potent force even if the VL rounds aren’t available straight away. The weapon is not that difficult to aim and with a little practice you can hit targets over 600m away

Gear 2: RPG-7 has some more ammo unlock including the OE and VR rounds both of which are very potent in the right hands; however the biggest issue is the arrival of the SMAW with the AA round which is just ludicrous. OpFor do NOT need the SMAW at all. Dragon also becomes available at G2 and isn’t too bad a weapon in a pinch.

Gear 3: Metis – need I say anymore? This weapon is so far beyond overpowered it’s not funny, you don’t even need to see a target to lock onto it and fire away a missile that will kill pretty much anything in one hit and it doesn’t have a max range. We all saw the infamous Metis tower trick that players would use where they could lock off entire sections of the map with minimal effort.



BluFor – AT

Gear 0: AT-4 is actually pretty good in the early stages of the game and I don’t really see anyone having any difficulty using it. I use INKO on GoN server so will almost always carry one of these in the early stage of a match.

Gear 1: No change as far as I can remember which is slightly retarded – I’d probably recommend the HEDP MAAWS which is near useless against anything with armour anyway

Gear 2: NLAW – a launcher that is far greater than you give it credit for. Basically a mini-metis but limited to only 900ish range. This thing is a potent weapon and a savvy player can carry three rounds which will kill anything up to a T-55 in one hit. Again, minimal aim required.

Gear 3: Javelin is pretty good but takes a bit of getting used to using, unfortunately it also shows up as an incoming missile to the T-90 and BMP-3 so can be a pain to use in certain scenarios.





Overall I agree with your proposed changes to the AT element of gear selection. Only thing I would change would be to bring the Dragon back down to Gear 2 as it’s damage is pretty low.



As for the rest of gear balancing issues:



The TWS weapons you refer to, SVD/FAL are only TWS due to a mod that is allowed on the server that changes the NVG version of those two weapons to also have thermal and personally I think this should be removed or the weapons moved to a more appropriate gear level. The FAL-NV in particular available way too early for such a potent weapon. 7.62 Thermal with scope? You’d be silly not to use it. The normal FAL I have no issue with as BluFor have the M240 Elcan or the M14.



Other little issues like the saving of gear bought off AI soldiers; backpacks not working; running over town defense AI; all need to be fixed up somehow by Benny. However the new gear changes coming in .72 will be interesting, especially for those players who like play medics muwahahahah, they’re in for a rude shock!







Light Factory


2. Light factory
OPFOR:
LF 0, ???
LF 1, M113 ambo (invuln to small arms and terrain damage), BRDM-2 (14.5mm w/ 7.62 coax, invuln to small arms)
LF2, Vodnik ambo, ATGM BRDM, Vodnik BPPU
LF3, BTR-90(30mm Autocannon, 7.62 coax, AT-5 ATGM, AGS-17 GL), BM21-Grad

BLUFOR:
LF 0, GPK (.50 cal, vulnerable to small arms), Jackal (.50 cal, 7.62, vulnerable to small arms), Repair truck
LF 1, CROWS (mk. 19 or .50 cal, vulnerable to small arms), Ammo/fuel trucks,
LF 2, Ambo (vulnerable to small arms and terrain damage), TOW humvee, Another repair truck (???)
LF 3, Avenger (Poor AA capability, .50cal coax, vulnerable to small arms), LAV-25 (25mm, 7.62 coax.)





The difference between the GPK and the BRDM isn’t too great. Both are nearly imperious to small arms fire up to .50cal which will go right through both of them. The BRDM in particular is easy to kill if you have a .50 call as they’re big fat targets, in fact the easiest way to neutralise a BRDM is to use .50cal and aim for just below the turret.

The ATGM vs TOW argument is valid, both have their strengths and weaknesses. These are:



TOW

Pros: cheap; more powerful rocket; thermal imaging; can carry 5 men; can ambush easier as turret does not activate engine

Cons: exposed crew; light armour; easy to damage wheels



ATGM

Pros: armoured against small arms up to .50cal; more ammo; faster rate of fire; better off road capability; radar in driver’s seat (this is a pet hate of mine); amphibious

Cons: no thermal; weaker rockets; only carries the driver + gunner;



So yeah, they’re different vehicles and I don’t see too much of a problem with either of them.



Personally I would like to see ambos moved to LF2 on both sides with the M113 being moved to the HF0 to even things up a bit there but otherwise I’m overly happy with the LF progression as you described. I’ll mention Strykers later. As mentioned Avengers are useless against players who have even a modicum of skill.





Repair Trucks



Extremely useful assets in the right hands. These things can clear a town in minutes regardless of whether your BluFor or OpFor. You mention that the OpFor repair truck is a more potent weapon but I wouldn’t disregard the BluFor one. The static GMG, HMG and TOW are all extremely useful. A TOW/GMG combo can clear a town very quickly.



Honestly I’d love to see the Warfare repair/re-arm/re-fuel menu removed from the repair trucks altogether and make players use the separate ammo/fuel/repair trucks but this is getting into a separate Warfare topic which we can talk about later.



Ambos



Without getting into it too much, the whole mobile respawn in its current form needs to be looked at and revised to hopefully stop the whackamole games we get going on in towns. Project reality has some awesome ideas in it I’d love to see incorporated into BE.





Heavy Factory



Oooo here’s where things are definitely in need of a shake up. I’m in two thoughts about the T-34 as it’s cannon is rather pathetic, even against GPKs. A single VL RPG round from AI resistance will kill it and it’s also very slow. However it is still a tank that can tab lock onto things.

The T-55 cannot tab lock (well last I checked anyway) which means that the player must man the gun if he wants to be effective in that vehicle.






OPFOR:
HF 0: T34!!! (MBT, 7.62mm frontgunner)
HF 1: ZSU (Zeus x2), BMP-2 (30mm Autocannon, 7.62mm coax, ATGM, 250 armour), T-55!!! (MBT)
HF 2: BMP-3 (100mm HE cannon, 30mm Autocannon, 3x 7.62mm guns, ATGM, 300 armour), T-72 (MBT, 690 Armour)
HF 3: T-90(800 Armour), Tunguska(Tung missiles).

BLUFOR:
HF 0: AAV (.50 cal, Mk.19), Stryker M2/Mk.19 (lol, 160 Armour)
HF 1: Bradley A1(ATGM, 25mm gun, 7.62mm coax, 300 armour), Stryker MEV (Ambo, 160 Armour).
HF 2: M1A1 (MBT, 850 Armour), Bradley A2(400 Armour)
HF 3: M1A2 (MBT, 900 Armour, loader 7.62mm), MLRS (finally, heavy rocket artillery), Linebacker (Tung missiles)





So yeah, things aren’t looking anywhere near balanced at this point. As you mention later on I do think the Strykers should be moved from HF to LF with the exception of the MGS. Strykers are glorified Humvees in this game.



BMP-2 is a potent weapon but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s outright better than the M2 as that has the thermals and TOW’s as well. BMP-3 is only viable if running the TGW mod which allows the Arkan to tab-lock and also gives the vehicle zeroing and thermals. Maybe move the BMP-3 to HF3 for OpFor to even things up a bit.

T-90 is lethal with the TGW mod and the refleks missile which allows that double tap kill option. Tunguska needs no introduction having plagued BluFor air since day one, unfortunately it’s also pretty much the only AA defense OpFor has that is missile based and mobile.



So now we look at BluFor HF as current and we can all heartily laugh together at how **** it is. AAV – why bother? Slow and is only armed with a Mk19 and a machine gun. I’d rather take a GMG Jackal over this thing. Moving the Stryker MGS here or to HF1 would definitely help balance things up a lot in regards to OpFor getting MBTs earlier than BluFor.

The Abrams needs no intro as everyone knows it’s one of the few saving grace vehicles for BluFor. The Bradley isn’t too bad but can be rather slow. MLRS is moot as no one ever plays with arty on (boo hiss!!) The Linebacker is a touchy subject for me; sure it has the Tunguska missile when balancing is on but the radar range is pathetic. A seasoned player will see your Linebacker and rape you before you even see him on your radar.





I see your HF edits and cringe a bit so I’d rather see the following:



BluFor

HF0 – MEV; AAV;

HF1 – MGS; Bradley

HF2 – M1A1; Bradley ERA; Linebacker

HF3 – TUSK;





OpFor

HF0 – M113 Ambo; M113; T34

HF1 – T55; BMP2; ZSU-4;

HF2 – T72; BMP3

HF3 – T90; Tunguska





The Shilka is a pretty lethal weapon against resistance towns as the cannon on it will easily take out tanks and it dices up lesser vehicles pretty quickly.





So there we go, took me a while but here’s my response. I know that others have responded to this with other points but if I try to address those too I’ll never get this posted. Ultimately I’d like to discuss the entire concept of Warfare as we know it and how we could propose changes to the existing system, not just the balancing aspects but the entire mission itself.



I’m actually semi-free for once this weekend so I’ll jump in Baskervilles TS channel and am more than happy to chat your ear off about it all there.
Goshawk

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1158
Joined: 8 Jul 07, 11:23 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Freeborne » 6 Jul 12, 2:21 pm

You agree the LAV25 and BTR90 are not an even match, but still have both at LF3?

BLUFOR don't get a single decent AT vehicle at the LF!!! OPFOR get 3 (BTR90, BDRM-ATGM, BPPU). Pretty sure there's a mod that allows AI in ATGM to lock on to other vehicles too.

All these changes sound pretty pro. Lets give HF0 better hardware then Resistance, so you can easily rape the towns right from the start and don't even need to bother with LF or G updates. How is the Shilka a fair counterpart to the AAV? It's also one mean factory-killing machine.

Don't forget to throw in ambo's at HF0 too so we can rush for Heavy like the good old days and just town rape and base hunt. :?

Wait never mind, you already got all that on your list. 8-)

Keep up the good work anyway. In a few more weeks you'll be up to same stage I left it at and if logic rules the end of the day, you'll come to the same conclusions :P
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 926
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby UnderTow » 6 Jul 12, 3:18 pm

well im not going to get too heavily into this discussion but, my short notes are:

-FN FAL scoped should be moved to G3
Smaws should be removed from red or put in G3


-All armoured APcs should be removed from opfor LF to HF

or

Put strykers in LF as they are a match for BTRs and bdrms


-2.072 already puts ambos @ lvl 1 LF for blue and changes a lot more which i havent completely seen yet

but the points above are the main things that i see unbalance the games as is atm.

the way the game is atm Opfor are OP in every instance of the game

alot of these changes have been made by freebornes balanced version, but for some reason no1 plays it.

i do like the idea of trying to balance the game but, but lol.... been and tried and failed many times

good luck tho
Image
UnderTow

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 144
Joined: 27 Aug 10, 4:27 pm
Location: the combustion chamber of me 192

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Goshawk » 6 Jul 12, 3:21 pm

Pretty sure there's a mod that allows AI in ATGM to lock on to other vehicles too.


The latest beta patches semi fixed this up, they still dont seem to like firing while a player is the driver thoguh, its very iffy.

As for Blu not having decent AT at LF, adding the Stryker TOW might help there but the Hmv TOW isnt too bad. Maybe move BTR90 from LF to HF0? Then youd have a counterpart to MGS at HF0 if placed there and the BPU can act as the LAV of OpFor.
Heavy rushes can be avoided by start params or income levels. Move ambos to HF2 or something like that. Open discussion is whats needed. :)
Goshawk

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1158
Joined: 8 Jul 07, 11:23 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby SnatchReamer » 6 Jul 12, 4:46 pm

Nice thread.....very interesting......looking forward to more discussion/action.

I have been playing a bit of Blufor also......I quite like being on the defensive for a change.
Repair trucks as bait make great ambush sites! ;)
TIGZ
SnatchReamer

Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 61
Joined: 7 Apr 09, 3:31 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby theremin » 6 Jul 12, 4:59 pm

After a long hiatus I've been dipping my toes back into Warfare (usually under a pseudonym), and what do I find but the same old bad habits that drove me away in the first place, namely skilled/experienced players stacking one side (usually OPFOR) and making each game a foregone conclusion. What to do? Join the stacked side and have my quasi-bullying fun, or do the right thing and join the underdogs and waste my time...

IMHO Warfare is balanced enough (if the parameters are done right) - it is the players that need sorting out, not the tech tree/factory whatevers.
ALL GUTS. NO GLORY.
theremin

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 365
Joined: 7 Jun 10, 9:48 pm

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby UnderTow » 6 Jul 12, 5:14 pm

ye i do agree with theremin

you can change the mission as much as you like but the players attitudes are the main problem.

its usually the same bunch of players not willing to seperate from each other or their comfort zone, that seems to be the problem.

i find myself playing on opfor much more now as ive done my fair share of playing on the losing blu team,

like theremin said its a choice of all stack on 1 team or try to do the right thing and give the under skilled side a chance.

The main problem is until people change their attitudes towards the game then the same problems will always persist.
Image
UnderTow

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 144
Joined: 27 Aug 10, 4:27 pm
Location: the combustion chamber of me 192

Re: Warfare Balance Discussion

Unread postby Freeborne » 6 Jul 12, 5:34 pm

Theremin, UnderTow and myself are the only ones I remember that would usually go on BLUFOR to help balance the teams.

Neither of us have played much recently, so I can only assume the OPFOR stacking is the equivalent of bunch of 30 year olds picking a fight with some 10 year olds. :roll:

The main reason they all stack on OPFOR is they know OPFOR is the easier side to play, and has all the advantages. Put OPFOR at a disadvantage and just watch how many start switching over to BLUFOR.
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 926
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Next

Return to ArmA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

x

#{title}

#{text}