Balance

[Psyko]

In player's opinions...

Do you think there should be a balance of power in game?
At the moment, some maps promote the use of tanks Vs APCs (eg:Quai, Zatar)
Do you agree with methods such as these. Please vote at your conveniance.

note to admin: This question or poll, may be a repitition of a previous one from the past, but it is for updating purposes, and for refreshing the current known public opinions. Thank you.

[Masaq]

That's a really, really vague question to ask.

Balance in what regard? Balancing between the teams? Balancing the vehicles in the teams? Balancing between asset use and infantry?

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

I have nothing against asymmetrical balance... as long as both teams have even chances to win.

[Psyko]

I have nothing against asymmetrical balance... as long as both teams have even chances to win.

And you call me vague...

Balance in what regard? Balancing between the teams? Balancing the vehicles in the teams? Balancing between asset use and infantry?

This question is to be answered after you have experianced the game many many times with all aspects, and to be honust, its not a micromanagment level question, you gotta think of your answer from the position of a commander for example. its not wether you have a problem with one hummer going up against a vodnic for example. Its the recognisable balance between two armys. dont be afraid to answer.

[Masaq]

Um, on a back-of-an-envelope level, I'd estimate I have around 1500 hours on PR over three years. That experiencing the game "many many times" enough for you?

From the commander level, I'd say that given six or seven good squad leaders and players willing to follow their SL instructions, every map is winnable from every side.

Where it goes wrong is usually at the player level, not the map balancing angle. I've watched time and time again, waves of blue mob squads running:

From point A - a cluster of rallypoints between our flag and their flag.
To point B - their flag.

They keep dying, in their dozens, and they keep going back.

When usually what would win the flag within a few minutes is one squad rushing the front to distract the defender's attention whilst another pops around the back and kills the lot of 'em.

There are very few maps in PR that aren't pretty evenly balanced, and usually if they are unbalanced, a really good side can still win on the disadvantaged side.

Gulf of Oman WAC is possibly the only exception, where it's really really hard to get two flags and hold them as USMC, before the ticket bleed cripples you so badly you don't have a chance of winning.




EDIT:

Also, your poll options are completely misleading. Asymetric balance isn't about unfair fights, it's about giving both teams advantages and disadvantages, so that BOTH teams have an EQUAL chance to win, but they have to use DIFFERENT tactics and techniques to do so.

Example 1:

Symetrical balance is giving both sides four tanks that are evenly matched.
Asymetircal balance is giving team A six very powerful tanks, and team B two weaker tanks but also four fast-moving anti-tank vehicles.

------

Example 2:

Symetrical balance is giving both sides one helicopter and three APCs
Asymetrical balance is giving team A two tanks and an AAV, and team B four helicopters and two APCs.

[Spec]

For the gameplay, the maps should be balanced so both teams have a good chance.

But rather as assymetrical balance: One team has the better position, the other team more vehicles, or one team has air assets, the other team tanks, or, or, or. Not a tank for a tank and a jet for a jet, rather something like the militia maps, i like that, and i'd love to see it more often for regular armies, with the teams having totaly different assets and positions.

But not unfair - Asymmetrical balance is still balance.

[Pluizert]

For Zatar this would mean US gets 6 Apc's and MEC gets 4. But after 20 minutes in the round the T-90's roll in. For Qwai i still dont understand why the chinese get a tank and US not. Or is it because of the little bird with the hellfires and MEC only gets minigun?

[burghUK]

i think it shouldn't be baanced...isurgency should be more unbalanced as currently the brits have nowhere near enough firepower on that map. in ral life we would have apaches , maybe US a10 support , artillery support.and on maps where its US vs MEC/china the US should have the advantage as they currently hve the best armed forcs in the world.

[Psyko]

Um, on a back-of-an-envelope level, I'd estimate I have around 1500 hours on PR over three years. That experiencing the game "many many times" enough for you?

Hey! COOL! you nearly have as much as me.

So your saying, a good tank versus a good HAT is fair?
i dont know about everyone else, but i still find it difficult to fire that thing in time. but, however, there are still TOWs to rely on.
My point is there are many things thaat should effectivly even the balance, but its not there yet. ??:

for thr record, i voted for asymmetrical, because i like the challange.

[Outlawz7]

If you mean asymmetrical balance like air asset vs anti-air asset, then yes

If you mean asymmetrical balance, where it's invincible asset vs. sum loz3r t3rr0ri7 t3nk, then no

For Qwai i still dont understand why the chinese get a tank and US not.

TOW Humvee

[Masaq]

Edited the poll options so they're actually correct.

For Zatar this would mean US gets 6 Apc's and MEC gets 4. But after 20 minutes in the round the T-90's roll in. For Qwai i still dont understand why the chinese get a tank and US not. Or is it because of the little bird with the hellfires and MEC only gets minigun?

It's because the US have two transport and one attack chopper (which only has the miniguns, no Hydra unguided rockets). The US are supposed to utilise the helicopters and APCs to move light and fast to surpress the PLA's infantry.

The US has TOW hummers to deal with the T-90s.

A good side will use the APCs and helicopters to move their troops around in, with a dedicated tank-hunter squad using the heavy AT and the TOW hummers to remove the threat of the PLA's tanks and APCs.

When people don't do that, the USMC loose.

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

For Zatar this would mean US gets 6 Apc's and MEC gets 4. But after 20 minutes in the round the T-90's roll in.

Zatar is a different story. It's a Counter-attack game mode.

For Qwai i still dont understand why the chinese get a tank and US not.

There are some TOW Humvees for USMC, AFAIK

[gazzthompson]

qwai is a perfect example of map balance both teams have powefull assets (china - tank , USMC - LBs) but both sides need different tactics to win and need to deny the enemy of a tactic different from there own, like blowing up bridges as USMC to slow armor or shooting down LB's with 50.cals.

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Asymmetrical balancing is one of the best things about this mod, Al Basrah is a perfect exapmle. But straight forward AAS matches are spoilt by symmetry, Qinling is spoilt by the symmetrically placed airfields. Even EA made that mistake, Daquing and Fushe. Maybe these are just aesthetic points but meh.
We don't want any more M1A1's vs T-90's, that's just not right. (when they're balanced to equal power)

[BloodBane611]

I agree with smeg, the symmetry on many of the AAS maps ruins them. It's much more enjoyable to have an exploitable set of strength and weaknesses than to simply have to go smashing at each other for an entire game. At that point the team with better tactics will win, which is a good thing, but the fact is that on maps like Kashan and Quinling most people ignore tactics and simply drive their tank out over and over to get blown up.

[Psyko]

I agree. I like the veriety for units on the map.

[GR34]

I hate symmetrical maps most of the time b/c ther team in real life would not have the exact same amount of APCs tanks and cars. I think Teams should be specialized~

[Psyko]

HAHAHAA!!!

I had no idea this would go this way...

Look at how many people dislike Symmetry!!!

NOW!...

BRING BACK ARTY!!!

[OkitaMakoto]

Think like StarCraft. Insanely different races, with insanely different units, and yet they are balanced in a way that you can play as any and still have a chance. Terrans have nukes, Protoss and Zerg don't, but they have things to counter it in its strength.

I'm not too much for absolute asymmetry as in one side is super strong one side is going to get its a55 handed to it. I enjoy rounds where you have to take your assets and their assets into consideration and work with what you have and turn it to your advantage.

[turnpipe]

I suggest intuitive balance.
Both sides should have similar learning curves.