MP and Mods - Balance vs Realism

[Panzertard]

Gentlemen, I'm going to try a "soft aproach" to the dilemma some Addons / mods may create.

The poll reffers to both LockOn and DCS.

 

-> The specific mods themselves should NOT be discussed.

-> This poll should rather indicate which what you as players preffer in MP.

-> There's no "I dont care" options - if you dont care you wont answer the poll.

-> There's no "But if we do this - then I might choose that" options, it can be discussed in the threads of the specific Mods/Addons.

-> The phrase "cheat" is irrelevant in the context of the poll. The phrase is "MP game balance".

 

This poll is purely about your preference regarding the addons/mods effect of Balance vs Realism in MP.

 

So consider - ED makes a product - it has a "Builtin" balance set by ED.

- Now there's an option to improve the game.

- If it affects realism and balance - which one would you choose?

 

---------------

 

EDIT: I hope I dont mess up the understanding of the questions by doing this;

Added a bit of clarification - because of such questions in below posts;

 

Realism

Mod / Authors should seek to improve realism - less consideration to if it changes balance with the original product.

Effect;

a) If Realism is the goal then there will be less considerations for Mod/Addon team to consider regarding "balance" - the team can focus on making better mods - and perhaps not involve ED.

 

Balance

- Mod / Addons should seek to maintain balance as intended with original product.

Effect;

b) If "game balance" is more important for most players then the Mod/Addon maker should strive to acomplish the task.

- May have to include ED to maintain balance.

It will take more time & resources for the Mod-team and possibly ED.

We may need to see changes in the current Game-engines if this is the case.

 

"I want to have both".

That would mean considerations to game balance and realism - and not ignore either.

Effect;

Same as b).

Edited December 4, 2009 by Panzertard

[Case]

If this poll is in response to the development of LEAVU, then I see no reason why you could not satisfy both options at the same time.

 

In this excellent post CyBerkut provides a possible way of giving server admins the control to decide if they want balanced gameplay or realistic gameplay. If implemented it would allow players to just pick the server that suits their type of gameplay best.

[Breakshot]

I agree with Case, makes no sense... And if LEAVU is the subject, the main concern, IMO is not realism vs balance, but rather transparency and fair play...

[CyBerkut]

Panzer, I voted for realism... but I did so because I largely agree with something you wrote in another thread. That being that balance can be addressed by mission design.

 

I do think that balance is very important. Coders can certainly have an effect upon that, but they don't have exclusive control over it. Realism (talking about aircraft fidelity here), on the other hand, is much more in the hands of the coders, with less opportunity for the mission designers to tweak/adjust.

[X-man]

Balance is part of the realism. Many talk about balance as if it's only a 50/50 balance. Obviously this is not truly realistic, but neither is a balance of 10/90.

 

Not all feature will be implemented, and so realism will always be compromised. F.e. RWR and IFF in LO completely destroys the realism part as these two systems are way overmodeled. Pilots can determine from 60nm away that the contact is a bandit and this never fails. Same goes for RWR which will give you a very good picture 99% of the time. Completely flawed when compared to reality.

 

And if you're just adding more and more features (which also are flawless), you'll end up with super-duper planes which are very far from realistic as reality includes a lot of failures, limitation and randomness which cant be portrayed well in the Sim

 

The developers have to find the right mix for all the aircraft in order to get a realistically balanced Sim, and by that I dont mean a 50/50 balance ;) Something like this; F-15 should be slightly better than a Su-27 and both of those should be quite a lot better then the Mig etc...

Edited December 4, 2009 by X-man

[Panzertard]

I agree with Case, makes no sense... And if LEAVU is the subject, the main concern, IMO is not realism vs balance, but rather transparency and fair play...

 

To you both; Yes, partly true.

 

a) If "game balance" is more important for most players then the Mod/Addon maker should strive to acomplish the task.

- May have to include ED.

It will take more time & resources for the Mod-team and possibly ED.

We may need to see changes in the current Game-engines if this is the case.

 

b) If Realism is the goal then there will be less considerations for Mod/Addon team to consider regarding "balance" - the team can focus on making better mods - and perhaps not involve ED.

 

Balance - both goals - Fair play (pick any) - can be achieved if the Mod/Addon teams to listen to the concerns of the groups involved.

It may require the same considerations & resources (code changes) to achive the goal as with "a)".

 

This is why the poll was formulated this way.

I wanted it to indicate wether ED must be more involved with the Mod-community - and if the Mod-teams must pay attention to a particular group of the community. :)

[Frostie]

How about the balance related to each aircrafts level of realism.

[Panzertard]

How about the balance related to each aircrafts level of realism.

 

Thats already defined in the original product.

If a mod / addon shifts that balance - then it's balance shifting.

[VMFA117_Poko]

What a question. I will always choose realism with blind eyes. Because of realism I'm here on this forum.

[Panzertard]

What a question. I will always choose realism with blind eyes. Because of realism I'm here on this forum.

 

Hehe, good point :thumbup:

[Groove]

Balance is part of the realism.

 

In Modern Warfare 2 maybe, but not if you want realism.

 

Or let me put it in other way: AK-47 vs MQ-1.

[Groove]

What a question. I will always choose realism with blind eyes. Because of realism I'm here on this forum.

 

Rep inbound!

[X-man]

Groove, thats still balanced, just not 50/50

[VMFA117_Poko]

Groove, thats still balanced, just not 50/50

Ok X. In WTCC - Lada vs Chevy Cruze ;)

[RvEYoda]

I hope this poll results in at least 50% on realism's side.

Looks good so far :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

In SIM's like FC 2.0 and DCS there should not be any contemplation about whats realy important- realism.

 

If you want to team balance you should look at each teams aircraft types, and their numbers instead of making Su-27 clones out of F-15's and mig-29's. For that buy HAWX. ;)

Edited December 4, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Frostie]

I think most here will want realism over balanced gameplay, it goes without saying.

[Pilotasso]

I do know for a fact some dont

[Panzertard]

In SIM's like FC 2.0 and DCS there should not be any contemplation about whats realy important- realism.

 

If you want to team balance you should look at each teams aircraft types, and their numbers instead of making Su-27 clones out of F-15's and mig-29's. For that buy HAWX. ;)

 

My intention was not to indicate that the game should be dumbed down.

My intention was to clarify if there's a wish to change the balance ED put into their products originally.

Or the realism they put in. :)

 

<---- My bad if it wasnt clear from the start of the poll (slap me)

 

So consider - ED makes a product - it has a "Builtin" balance set by ED.

- Now there's an option to improve the game.

- If it affects realism and balance - which one would you choose?

Edited December 4, 2009 by Panzertard

[Frostie]

My intention was not to indicate that the game should be dumbed down.

My intention was to clarify if there's a wish to change the balance ED put into their products originally.

Or the realism they put in. :)

 

My bad if it wasnt clear from the start.

There is no clear definition of realism that can be applied to this game fairly, its obvious that F-15 fans want their aircraft as real as possible but don't seem to give 2 hoots about their opponents.

This is a very unrealistic opinion which seems to be shared by so many.

To create realism it takes a lot more than just changing the aircraft you fly. Im all for what realism ED can put into this sim because I believe he will do it impartially.

[Panzertard]

I hope this poll results in at least 50% on realism's side.

Looks good so far :thumbup:

At least you should have some "numbers" to rely on - or so I hope :)

[Pilotasso]

There is no clear definition of realism that can be applied to this game fairly, its obvious that F-15 fans want their aircraft as real as possible but don't seem to give 2 hoots about their opponents.

This is a very unrealistic opinion which seems to be shared by so many.

To create realism it takes a lot more than just changing the aircraft you fly. Im all for what realism ED can put into this sim because I believe he will do it impartially.

 

My intention was not to indicate that the game should be dumbed down.

My intention was to clarify if there's a wish to change the balance ED put into their products originally.

Or the realism they put in. :)

 

<---- My bad if it wasnt clear from the start of the poll (slap me)

 

So consider - ED makes a product - it has a "Builtin" balance set by ED.

- Now there's an option to improve the game.

- If it affects realism and balance - which one would you choose?

 

This is why I suggested to change aircraft type numbers on missions instead of just changing aircraft systems and weapons on 1 to 1 basis for balance. It just wont be believable.

 

For eaxmple I saw someone at the russian forums suggest if AMRAAm gets realistic changes then the F-15 should be limited to 2. Wich is BS and Im not talking about black shark. :D

 

Instead of porking the SIM like that I suggest a ratio os 4 migs per F-15 instead, and we still have the same ratio of AMRAAM's per mig. ;)

[RvEYoda]

Good post pilotasso. Fully agree with this .

This is how we ran the modded missions on the rve server, although in Fc1.12

the amraam doesnt do very much, but still this kind of balance is lots of fun.

 

I remember when i flew the 29A in there and scored a kill on an f-15. Made me feel

really good, having accomplished something. however I did get shot down most of the time

Edited December 4, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[VMFA117_Poko]

Second thought - this poll is really interesting. Reality always looks for supremacy but in different areas. Both sides (red/blue) fight for it that is why balance comes from reality but we can not call it clearly fifty-fifty situation in all time frames. It even can't be easily measured. If LO stick to the reality, overall balance will not be able to be measured - it shouldn't be. In one area red side is better - in other the blue one.

[Panzertard]

This is why I suggested to change aircraft type numbers on missions instead of just changing aircraft systems and weapons on 1 to 1 basis for balance. It just wont be believable.

 

For eaxmple I saw someone at the russian forums suggest if AMRAAm gets realistic changes then the F-15 should be limited to 2. Wich is BS and Im not talking about black shark. :D

 

Instead of porking the SIM like that I suggest a ratio os 4 migs per F-15 instead, and we still have the same ratio of AMRAAM's per mig. ;)

 

Ah, yes - I see what you mean now.

Yes, somewhat what also suggested as a short term solution / workarounds.

I'm also curious if maybe if there should be a long term strategy - a framework perhaps - for modders.

 

For example where a mod could get approval by ED - so it's linked into the existing Game-mechanisms with a method that ED approves of - and where all players could trust that realism & balance can cooexists - even when new mods appear.

 

But that kind of framework & mechanisms would require development of course.