Balance

[Sabre-Oz]

warfare isn't equal in reality.

adapt and overcome.

[[T]Terranova7]

I'm definitely hoping to see more asymmetrical balancing in the future. Fool's Road, Qwai River and Al Basrah are good ones. Though personally I want to see this style of balancing for conventional armies too. Like one side having armor support during an assault, while the other side starts with most of their flags, and must rely on other AT methods like TOW Humvees and such.

[zangoo]

asymmetrical balance is the way to go if you want to become more real, cus in what war did each army have the exact same amount of tanks, apcs, ect.

[Ablack77]

1. I want Symmetrical strength between the two armys (Identical assets on each team)
2. I want Asymmetrical strength between the two armys (Different assets on each team)

3. I want what the dev's provide, they've been playing and modding this game long enough to make the right choices and apart from that it's their mod.
I am happy to leave it in their hands

[Drude]

If the game (what-ever-it-is) has identical armies with different uniforms - I won't be playing it. Balance sucks.

When your weapons are less effective than your enemy or you don't have vehicles etc, it courages people to use different kind of tactics to fight back.(of course it depends, if the players are intelligent enought, and in gamingworld there is a great lack of iq - just see what kind of games they are making these days and what are the top sellers).

[Pluizert]

"A game of chess is like a swordfight, you must think first before you move!"

[Masaq]

HAHAHAA!!!

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

Look at how many people dislike Symmetry!!!

NOW!...

BRING BACK ARTY!!!

If you had no idea the poll would go this way then you clearly have no understanding of PR's playerbase.

I could have told you that our players were looking for maps that encourage the use of different strategies and tactics for each side without going to a poll about it.

As I said before, it's not that people dislike symmetry; it's that they dislike pure symmetry where loadouts are identical. Asymmetric balancing is a form of symmertical power in that both sides have the strength to win, if player properly.


As for Artillery; if you mean "Bring back the arty from vBF2" then you really really need to have a read of the forums properly; there are a ton of old threads on this discussion that show why it's a) unrealistic and b) just plain **** for gameplay.

If you mean a player-controlled method of indirect fire, then a player-controlled mortar system is something that the Devs have expressed an interest in for a long time.

[AnRK]

1. I want Symmetrical strength between the two armys (Identical assets on each team)
2. I want Asymmetrical strength between the two armys (Different assets on each team)

3. I want what the dev's provide, they've been playing and modding this game long enough to make the right choices and apart from that it's their mod.
I am happy to leave it in their hands

No disrespect intended to the DEVs cos I love PR and they do a hell of a good job BUT this mod is obviously influenced by the suggestions and opinions of the people that play it. Of course they don't have to take these suggestions and opinions into consideration, and most of the DEVs have stated on several occasions that they won't do something just cos the community says so (which is very apparent), but nevertheless if they didn't want feedback and ideas then they wouldn't have the forums set up in a way that encourages it/them.

[Rudd]

I want a mix!

Say in a China Vs USMC (or Army :wink - considering this is near future - you can reasonably claim it should be a symmetrical arrangement. But if you go insurgent Vs a regular army, the options clearly change.

Then again, you can have the 'battle of the bulge' scenario on a map, say a USMC detachment has been cut off by Chinese armoured corps....obvious options for asymmetry there.

The only pre-requisite of a map is that both sides have a realistic chance to win if they play their cards right.

[.blend]

asymmetrical armies is real, but its still a game, so there should be some sort of balancing, maybe faster spawning etc.

[Psyko]

Masaq;627267']If you had no idea the poll would go this way then you clearly have no understanding of PR's playerbase.

I could have told you that our players were looking for maps that encourage the use of different strategies and tactics for each side without going to a poll about it.

As I said before, it's not that people dislike symmetry; it's that they dislike pure symmetry where loadouts are identical. Asymmetric balancing is a form of symmertical power in that both sides have the strength to win, if player properly.


As for Artillery; if you mean "Bring back the arty from vBF2" then you really really need to have a read of the forums properly; there are a ton of old threads on this discussion that show why it's a) unrealistic and b) just plain **** for gameplay.

If you mean a player-controlled method of indirect fire, then a player-controlled mortar system is something that the Devs have expressed an interest in for a long time.

Arty is a realistic factor in war. Only drawback is that some armys may not have it or an equivilant, but you could always incorperate somthing like scud missiles.

AND! you dont need to insult me to get your point accross, you are being rude when you say things like that and you bring the level of the peers down. i dont appresiate when sombody starts correcting me from the git-go, and telling me what i should be thinking, and critisising my every action or remark when to be honust... i was correct.

if you think im wrong, tell me why its unrealistic to have Arty on the battlefield. everyone here gets what i ment by asymmetry and symmetry, i DIDNT mean individual equipments vs equipments and vehicles vs vehicles, i ment everything in total. so you didnt have to edit my post in the first place. the fair game/unfair game was for kids to understand so they could answer.

I heard they are implimenting mortars, cool idea, and i cant wait to check them out soon, but whenever im commander, i kinda feel helpless because of the lack of deployable weapons.

[Masaq]

You misunderstood; I wasn't trying to be insulting I was making a factual comment. There have been many debates on these forums about how best to balance maps and assets; almost unanimously the end result is that people would prefer to see variation in the sides in order to force different styles of gameplay.

As for the BF2 arty system, it's horrible in so many ways:

1) The commander can right-click anywhere on his map without the need for a spotter. This has been rectified with PR's JDAM system, where a third party must call in a target.

2) It's virtually 99% accurate (apart from a small deviation based on the target's distance and baring from the centre of the map, usually), for no investment of skill or time.

3) It requires no players to operate it.

4) When it is implementd in a map, both teams are given identical systems. This is why both MEC and the PLA have access to the JDAM (which replaces the BF2 artillery system) even though technically neither side has access to such a system at this moment in time. PR however is set slightly into the future, and the PLA are well along the way to developing their own equivilant system. MEC don't exist, so we can't really comment on what their real technological capabilities are.

In short, the artillery system as implemented in vBF2 was one of the most arcady and unreal aspects of the game. It gave commanders neither the full power of a decent rolling artillery barage (which would be massively too powerful for the size of the maps, even PR ones) nor an accurate representation of indirect fire provided by suitable units (namely, mortars).

As for editing your poll options - I'm sorry but they were wrong. Asymmetrical balance doesn't mean "unfair", it means precisely the opposite. It means both sides have a chance to win, providing they use their assets in the best possible way.

Finally, as commander you're not supposed to be deploying weapons left right and centre; you're supposed to be co-ordinating your troops and providing them with the logistical support they need to establish zones of control.

[Bob_Marley]

Both are required.

Its all very well saying, for example, that the M1 should WTFPWN the T-90 and thus the T-90 should be deployed in greater numbers. Until you think about it. When one side has more tanks, they get less infantry, and, at its core, this is an infantry based game. For assets like tanks I favor Symmetrical balancing, and, IMO, Asymmetrical should be achieved through map design when conventional armies are involved.

[Psyko]

Masaq;627737']You misunderstood; I wasn't trying to be insulting I was making a factual comment. There have been many debates on these forums about how best to balance maps and assets; almost unanimously the end result is that people would prefer to see variation in the sides in order to force different styles of gameplay.

As for the BF2 arty system, it's horrible in so many ways:

1) The commander can right-click anywhere on his map without the need for a spotter. This has been rectified with PR's JDAM system, where a third party must call in a target.

2) It's virtually 99% accurate (apart from a small deviation based on the target's distance and baring from the centre of the map, usually), for no investment of skill or time.

3) It requires no players to operate it.

4) When it is implementd in a map, both teams are given identical systems. This is why both MEC and the PLA have access to the JDAM (which replaces the BF2 artillery system) even though technically neither side has access to such a system at this moment in time. PR however is set slightly into the future, and the PLA are well along the way to developing their own equivilant system. MEC don't exist, so we can't really comment on what their real technological capabilities are.

In short, the artillery system as implemented in vBF2 was one of the most arcady and unreal aspects of the game. It gave commanders neither the full power of a decent rolling artillery barage (which would be massively too powerful for the size of the maps, even PR ones) nor an accurate representation of indirect fire provided by suitable units (namely, mortars).

As for editing your poll options - I'm sorry but they were wrong. Asymmetrical balance doesn't mean "unfair", it means precisely the opposite. It means both sides have a chance to win, providing they use their assets in the best possible way.

Finally, as commander you're not supposed to be deploying weapons left right and centre; you're supposed to be co-ordinating your troops and providing them with the logistical support they need to establish zones of control.

okay.

I agree with everything you just said.

And even though this tangent has gone a bit off topic, i would like to conclude my comments with...

Vinilla ARTY was a horrible monstor, and PR slew it. However i think, the ability to call a (manned)mobile/immobile Artillary attack on a specific spot would be very advantagous. This would create yet another minigame within the game for spec ops teams to destroy them as they have very little close range capabilities. I dont mean spam bombardments anywhere on the map, but i do mean, that if the arty-vehicle is there the commander should be able to relay an attack via laser becon. And because many have concluded that they enjoy playing asymmetrically, it might be a good gameplay dynamic to reenter into some matches after being modified somewhat.

Thanks for reading.

[SiLeNt_SpAdE]

I love them both, but since insurgency is my favorite gametype I would have to say asymetrical. As long as the sides are evenly matched in ability to win it is fine. When playing a map with asymetrical sides it adds more replayability I feel because there is twice as much gameplay elements. One conventional army uses helos and apcs along with fully equipped troops to win, while the other uses bomb cars, traps, fast movement to win. When it comes down to it though it really depens on the gametype and map and I think PR has done a great job.

[DeadboyUSMC]

Hey, don't trash talk arty...

But, to tell the truth, vBF2's arty system is a horrible mockery of real life artillery tactics and utilization.

[kilroy0097]

As long as each team has some sort of way to counteract an asset on the other team then Asymmetrical strength between the two armies is a good thing. It furthers story and all sorts of things. You just have to use strategic locations and things like spawn locations and times to help balance the two armies in different ways.

For example, on the map Al Kufrah Oilfield, there is absolutely no reason why the British should have 5 Tanks while the MEC have only 4. Obviously there is not difference in starting locations and distance to the primary two flags in the middle. In fact the Challenger British tank is arguably better than the MEC tank. So where is the balance in that? So that is one example of a Map in which they need to balance in other ways if unit numbers is not to be touched.

[fuzzhead]

kilroy: MEC have 2 BMP-3 which have 100mm cannons (essentially the MEC have 6 tanks)

[BloodBane611]

That's simplifying it far too much fuzzhead. The BMP-3s are not equal to the CR2s or the T90s, at best they are half tanks. They will never win against a challenger in a straight fight, even two of them against a CR2 will result in at least one of them dead unless both engage from the rear of the vehicle.

The BMP-3s are glorified APCs, not the real combat vehicles they should be. On Al Kufrah, at least in my experience with .7, playing GB is fun, while playing MEC is not. The fact that the challenger is superior to the T90 means that the addition of two very light tanks doesn't balance out the map.

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Uhh...

(Gets prepared for uproar)

I've taken on Challengers and won easily with the BMP. The HEAT cannon destroys tanks in 2 shots, and if not, you have your main AT rounds hammering him. If he turns to face you...Fall back behind a berm and run for your life. Either way, that challenger often takes quite a beating.