Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
genxs

Low/No pop Capture restriction

77 posts in this topic

Well folks, its still ups and downs with the server population. At this point of writing Arma3 even has only 210 players on and many of those are idling to hehe.

Here in wwiiol it hurts bad though when the population drops, once we get to that 10-15 amount it starts to show. By the time we get to 5-10 active players in a team its already hurting. Towns fall in minimal capture time, FBs cant be secured, FRUs are never guarden and capturing with 1 or 2 is almost silly.

I so much would like to opt again the Bunker-Capture restriction when we are below 'acceptable' population count. I would define the restriction boundery as;

- less then 20 on a side. Normal bunker timers

- less then 15 on a side. Double bunker timers (capturing takes twice as long)

- less then 10 on a side. Can capture depots but not bunker.

- less then 5 on a side. Can only capture the spawnable.

These restrictions would make the gameplay on attack and defence alot more interesting as it lasts longer. I have defended ABs with 4-5 players, its nuts but if the bunker would not be capturable i could at least enjoy the short range camp.. or roll a outside FRU to flank them.

So my vote (again) for Capture restriction based on pop. numbers.

Who's with me ?

S!

Genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in case your team is losing bad, all you need to do is to log off? I think this would hurt low-pop even more because people would play by logging out. Or log in on the other side and sit in field to raise the pop limit.

Even if it were a good idea, I don't think there is any reasonable way of implementing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think there is any other fix to it than lowering cap timers for underpopulated side. That way, if it's 20 vs. 10, 3 of the 10 can almost cap a city on their own if the 20 don't guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think deeper.

* We will not drop below 5 (active) players so perhaps always allow to capture a spawnable. At least there will be combat focus.

* If you logoff to help your side then the AB will only get camped more, the flag will bleed faster and before you know it the flag is drained of its strong units. Then when population growns the enemy can wals into the bunker.

* AB combat will occur more as there is less need to rush to the bunker flag.

At least i think so.

S!

Genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my advice would be no max delay with one ao! and back to 30 sec max delay with 2 aos!

that will defenatly help the side is undepop on tz3, and will incentivate people playing on other tz's!

Edited by wegue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm generally not a fan of changing anything based on random pop fluctuations. I would think nothing would be more annoying than entering a building thinking it'll take 8 min to cap, but 15 min later you're still plugging away at it (if cap timers double).

Also we've seen how SD gets screwy when the player pop is polled (that's why sometimes you'll spawn with 45 sec SD, then spawn with 0, then with 45 all within a short period), I don't envision the changing timers (or damage thresholds to various things as some have suggested) going very smooth....

How often would the player pop be polled?

What happens if timers decrease while your already mid-cap? (I'm assuming since the "capture" function has been called with a longer timer it'll continue regardless of the new pop level)

What happens at those magic times where the pop level is just enough to trip/untrip the level changes regularly? (we've seen this at times with the 1->2 AO change where the 2nd AO will show up, then vanish a few times before remaining stable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The specific implementation is a matter of going through it, conditioning each part.

Having a rule to implement sounded like the best start :)

Having no rule means no solution/alternative for so long now. This problem can easily be addressed imo. The details are not that hard to fill in.

I'm generally not a fan of changing anything based on random pop fluctuations. I would think nothing would be more annoying than entering a building thinking it'll take 8 min to cap, but 15 min later you're still plugging away at it (if cap timers double).

Also we've seen how SD gets screwy when the player pop is polled (that's why sometimes you'll spawn with 45 sec SD, then spawn with 0, then with 45 all within a short period), I don't envision the changing timers (or damage thresholds to various things as some have suggested) going very smooth....

How often would the player pop be polled?

What happens if timers decrease while your already mid-cap? (I'm assuming since the "capture" function has been called with a longer timer it'll continue regardless of the new pop level)

What happens at those magic times where the pop level is just enough to trip/untrip the level changes regularly? (we've seen this at times with the 1->2 AO change where the 2nd AO will show up, then vanish a few times before remaining stable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in case your team is losing bad' date=' all you need to do is to log off?[/quote']

That is exactly what people do anyway when they are faced with 20 people rick rolling 5 day in and day out. :)

The reality is that SD works and likely saved the game during those dark days of unstoppable over pop rule.

I think all the other timer solutions proposed still get you to the same place .... some people won't be happy unless they are quickly and efficiently rolling undefended towns with low pop numbers. Is it better twiddling your thumbs sitting in a depot for 10 minutes instead of 5 or having a 2 minute spawn delay?

SD works and makes it substantially more difficult to both cap and defend. I hate waiting two minutes and perhaps that is too long. But 30 seconds is barely a penalty at all. So I would look at tweaking the SD number and analyzing results. This, along with improving the SD logic so it works more effectively with low pop server. The logic has to be more than a percentage over pop and must take into consideration overall server pops as well. the polling methodology and frequency should be reviewed as well.

A 50% pop advantage is more substantial during low server pop than high server pop as during high server pop you still have that minimum effective number to defend a town.

Also note that making FB's more difficult to take down will exacerbate the current problem as it will be next to impossible for a low pop crew to cut a few guys off defense to take down FB's to stop an attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither side was able to mount any sort of attack today. It was "moling Brussels" for hours. No GHC on for some time, I guess the same with AHC.

Hope players come back soon.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither side was able to mount any sort of attack today. It was "moling Brussels" for hours. No GHC on for some time, I guess the same with AHC.

Hope players come back soon.

Yesterday I saw plenty of good fights by either side, 'till around 2AM US east coast where it became lowpop all of a sudden. Mechelen fell not even 20 allies online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In be4 lock.

I for one am sick and tired (of any side) complaining about TZ3 and trying to further cripple it.

No SC rule is there to prevent brigade losses, not caps.

If then one side is regularly overpop in this TZ and doesn't want to balance it out so be it, they can pad on their backs knowing that they fought against empty towns basically.

But stop with this crap with new rules and more rules to try to further cripple gameplay cause in the end you can shut the server during these times anyways and then its goodbye game.

If you don't play that TZ you have no business criticizing it.

Only way to make for a better game is get the population up.

Edited by marcus33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't play that TZ you have no business criticizing it.

Only way to make for a better game is get the population up.

I agree with the last sentence. But the circus is TZ3 is affecting the other TZs too as many log on to see the efforts of the last day are systematically being erased, and more, by the side that has the number advantage in lowpop..

Someone that plays both sides (who's name I will keep for myself), a good vet who's word I trust, just told me that he counted the players spwned in mission last night :

24 axis

4 allies.

If theres not something wrong with those numbers... I just don't know what to say. I'm still against closing the server during those hours, but damn lol.

Its sad. Very sad.

I don't know what it would involve coding-wise. But I think we need a hard lock on population imbalance during those hours. Why let people log on the overpop'd side when its already 20 vs 5 ????

I bet if players could tell that they're so outrageously outnumbering the enemy, more would switch to the underpop'd side. Now, since we never really know the numbers online, we all always pretend that "its not that bad etc."

I wonder whats the logic behind still hiding the population numbers in game...

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well folks, its still ups and downs with the server population. At this point of writing Arma3 even has only 210 players on and many of those are idling to hehe.

Here in wwiiol it hurts bad though when the population drops, once we get to that 10-15 amount it starts to show. By the time we get to 5-10 active players in a team its already hurting. Towns fall in minimal capture time, FBs cant be secured, FRUs are never guarden and capturing with 1 or 2 is almost silly.

I so much would like to opt again the Bunker-Capture restriction when we are below 'acceptable' population count. I would define the restriction boundery as;

- less then 20 on a side. Normal bunker timers

- less then 15 on a side. Double bunker timers (capturing takes twice as long)

- less then 10 on a side. Can capture depots but not bunker.

- less then 5 on a side. Can only capture the spawnable.

These restrictions would make the gameplay on attack and defence alot more interesting as it lasts longer. I have defended ABs with 4-5 players, its nuts but if the bunker would not be capturable i could at least enjoy the short range camp.. or roll a outside FRU to flank them.

So my vote (again) for Capture restriction based on pop. numbers.

Who's with me ?

S!

Genxs

So it takes 2 years per campaign? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it takes 2 years per campaign? :rolleyes:

Nah so the map doesn't move exclusively in TZ3 when its 20 vs 5 or worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the last sentence. But the circus is TZ3 is affecting the other TZs too as many log on to see the efforts of the last day are systematically being erased, and more, by the side that has the number advantage in lowpop..

Someone that plays both sides (who's name I will keep for myself), a good vet who's word I trust, just told me that he counted the players spwned in mission last night :

24 axis

4 allies.

If theres not something wrong with those numbers... I just don't know what to say. I'm still against closing the server during those hours, but damn lol.

Its sad. Very sad.

I don't know what it would involve coding-wise. But I think we need a hard lock on population imbalance during those hours. Why let people log on the overpop'd side when its already 20 vs 5 ????

I bet if players could tell that they're so outrageously outnumbering the enemy, more would switch to the underpop'd side. Now, since we never really know the numbers online, we all always pretend that "its not that bad etc."

I wonder whats the logic behind still hiding the population numbers in game...

There have been a lot more than 5 people on during our Axis TZ3 steamrolls. We have the same problems on TZ2. Lets be real here. Our TZ3 is just very strong.

I, too, would like to know real numbers, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, would like to know real numbers, though.

Like I said, I'm not online during those hours (logged after mechelen around 2AM US East coast time and even then there wasn't 10 guys in town trying to defend it already and I know it gets much worst later during the night) but thats a trustworthy vet that checked missions on both sides and counted...

The guy plays whatever side that is underpoped when he logs in...

Tbh dexlysik, its not the first time I see such horrible numbers for tz3 lol. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were accurate.

And yes maybe tz2 axis is also struggling. I'm inclined to believe that after observing how little they attack during that TZ outside of the skilled attempts of the 250th during late ish EU TZ (you guys are awesome to see play).

But you still have a critical mass of players meaning that you can defend your towns.

When you have less than 10 guys ONLINE, you don't have this critical mass.

Truth is this game isn't made to handle such low population numbers...

I'm just sad really. I don't care about losing, unlike what CSM may think. I lost more than my share of campaigns already and I'm still here.

I just wish we would lose ground in a more honorable/fair manner. Couple of sundays ago, axis was rolling us during EU and US TZ. But it was really cool to see. I juste hate logging in relatively early to see all our gains erased and at the same time knowing that the 5-8 guys who did the graveyard shift probably did their best anyway.

Really sucks.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I'm not online during those hours (logged after mechelen around 2AM US East coast time and even then there wasn't 10 guys in town trying to defend it already and I know it gets much worst later during the night) but thats a trustworthy vet that checked missions on both sides and counted...

The guy plays whatever side that is underpoped when he logs in...

Tbh dexlysik, its not the first time I see such horrible numbers for tz3 lol. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were accurate.

And yes maybe tz2 axis is also struggling. I'm inclined to believe that after observing how little they attack during that TZ outside of the skilled attempts of the 250th during late ish EU TZ (you guys are awesome to see play).

But you still have a critical mass of players meaning that you can defend your towns.

When you have less than 10 guys ONLINE, you don't have this critical mass.

Truth is this game isn't made to handle such low population numbers...

I'm just sad really. I don't care about losing, unlike what CSM may think. I lost more than my share of campaigns already and I'm still here.

I just wish we would lose ground in a more honorable/fair manner. Couple of sundays ago, axis was rolling us during EU and US TZ. But it was really cool to see. I juste hate logging in relatively early to see all our gains erased and at the same time knowing that the 5-8 guys who did the graveyard shift probably did their best anyway.

Really sucks.

What I'm saying is - it's impossible there are only 5-8 guys online Allied during TZ3. Maybe 5-8 vets, but I've personally counted plenty of EI.

Chimay was a well planned take. As evident by the defense in Temse two nights ago or Aalst last night, when the Allies really get their defense game on, it's even tough for us in TZ3.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue at all, but with putting in some true grit like we do during TZ2, holding towns isn't impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is - it's impossible there are only 5-8 guys online Allied during TZ3. Maybe 5-8 vets, but I've personally counted plenty of EI.

Chimay was a well planned take. As evident by the defense in Temse two nights ago or Aalst last night, when the Allies really get their defense game on, it's even tough for us in TZ3.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue at all, but with putting in some true grit like we do during TZ2, holding towns isn't impossible.

I'm not saying it's this way every night, but I know for a fact that we had 4 defenders in Feschaux during the first of the TZ3 cutoffs this campaign.

I was told by someone else that we had 2 defenders total in Chimay at least for some time during your attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is - it's impossible there are only 5-8 guys online Allied during TZ3. Maybe 5-8 vets, but I've personally counted plenty of EI.

Chimay was a well planned take. As evident by the defense in Temse two nights ago or Aalst last night, when the Allies really get their defense game on, it's even tough for us in TZ3.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue at all, but with putting in some true grit like we do during TZ2, holding towns isn't impossible.

If you think that you really need to switch to allied for some TZ4 hours.

I haven't played those hours anymore lately but in february or so when there were the same rolls i would have been GLAD to have 8 defenders! A single fellow HC/vet logging in would mean the difference between getting completely rolled and being able to hold while running around like crazy trying to guard everything.

But its the same story all over again just like then. Axis players thinking that the attacks are good set up, comms and organization yada yada. Having 10 guys walk in a fru and then bumrushing cps while the defender can ( and should) actually only defend the AB isn't a good attack, its just a sheer lack of defenders.

Edited by monsjoex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is - it's impossible there are only 5-8 guys online Allied during TZ3. Maybe 5-8 vets, but I've personally counted plenty of EI.

Chimay was a well planned take. As evident by the defense in Temse two nights ago or Aalst last night, when the Allies really get their defense game on, it's even tough for us in TZ3.

I'm not saying there isn't an issue at all, but with putting in some true grit like we do during TZ2, holding towns isn't impossible.

I don't play those hours. Not many do. If you do, please go make a count and tell me otherwise. The player who gave me this count is a long time vet that plays both sides. No point in biasing the numbers.

You can kill "many EIs" but in fact, you're only killing the same 5 guys over and over again... thats all.

In Mechelen, there wasn't 10 allies defenders on my map while we held the AB... So I really doubt there was "5-8 vets" online later on when it gets even worst before the early euros log in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think that you really need to switch to allied for some TZ4 hours.

I haven't played those hours anymore lately but in february or so when there were the same rolls i would have been GLAD to have 8 defenders! A single fellow HC/vet logging in would mean the difference between getting completely rolled and being able to hold while running around like crazy trying to guard everything.

But its the same story all over again just like then. Axis players thinking that the attacks are good set up, comms and organization yada yada. Having 10 guys walk in a fru and then bumrushing cps while the defender can ( and should) actually only defend the AB isn't a good attack, its just a sheer lack of defenders.

Rolls happen to both sides. We each have a particularly weak TZ, being 3 for Allies and 2 for Axis.

Bottomline, more population is key. I'm hopeful for what the Steam release could do for the playerbase. There are a lot of possibilities of it causing problems, but I'm hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure someone who started playing this month has enough perspective to understand the troubles this circus has been causing to the game for quite a few years already...

No other TZs has come close to "roll towns" as systematically than TZ3 for the last few years. Its been a recurrent problem since many ANZACs stopped playing the game.

We used to have a lot of communities from around the world playing this game, ensuring a more or less constant critical mass of players all around the clock. Many of those communities (like the french-speaking one, for instance) are all but gone now.

The truth is that now, especially on the allied side during TZ3, this critical mass has been lacking.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure someone who started playing this month has enough perspective to understand the troubles this circus has been causing to the game for quite a few times already...

No other TZs has come close to "roll towns" as systematically than TZ3 for the last few years. Its been a recurrent problem since many ANZACs stopped playing the game.

We used to have a lot of communities from around the world playing this game, ensuring a more or less constant critical mass of players all around the clock.

The truth is that now, especially on the allied side during TZ3, this critical mass has been lacking.

New account, my friend. Formerly verrukt / fr0stw0lf . I've been around since 2004.

I'm with you 1000%. TZ3 is lacking hard for both sides. I'd like to see 50 v 50 as much as the Allies would in that hour.

Edited by dexlysik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New account' date=' my friend. Formerly verrukt / fr0stw0lf . I've been around since 2004.[/quote']

Running desperate, tried a personal attack.

All is good and fair in war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.