• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ou812

Does the side with more players always win?

50 posts in this topic

That is accurate with the old game mechanics. We'll see if that still holds true. I suspect that quick map rolls are a thing of the past unless the sides remain heavily unbalanced through the whole campaign towards one side. I think that is your point with the 20% more TOM as that indicates a great imbalance. I just think that with the new system 20% will not have the same affect as it did in the past.

Will be interesting to see what happens this map.

Except for supplies taking 16 hours, the rdp lost, the 8 minutes cap time and the extra division, mechanics are still pretty much the same old TOEs 2007 ©.

This one is going to be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like an opportunity for leadership matamor. Hell' date=' I'll form a squad with you. You lead I'll follow orders. We can do nothing but attack if you would like.[/quote']

I'm giving 24-48 hours after campaign starts, check TOM stats and will stick with that underpop one for the rest of the campaign. This is my candy.

My little finger is saying me that axis might overpop in TOM again during the opening hours. I predict between 6 and 8% more TOM than allied after 24 hours.

If it's allied, I'm going to join DDZ.

If it's axis, i'm returning to BK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm giving 24-48 hours after campaign starts, check TOM stats and will stick with that underpop one for the rest of the campaign. This is my candy.

My little finger is saying me that axis might overpop in TOM again during the opening hours. I predict between 6 and 8% more TOM than allied after 24 hours.

If it's allied, I'm going to join DDZ.

If it's axis, i'm returning to BK.

On va avoir plus de TOM à cause des rage quitters lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merely commenting on the falsity of Allies being able to win in 2-3 days because of the map setup.......but being a "NEW'er" F2P player I will cut you the slack you so don't deserve.

You threw out the overall win/loss ratio as if it meant something but campaign wins from another decade, when the unit list and the terrain not to mention basic game structures like HC and brigades were different just aren't relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This fellow here demonstrates my point wonderfully. Citing the win loss ratio of the game over 15+ years was always always the excuse used by doc to dismiss any complaint about game balance. It's probably the worst data analysis I've ever seen from any game developer and would get laughed at anywhere else but here it's repeated verbatim.

dear laughing david01: which data analysis would you like to use then to prove whatever your point is (which is very unclear - you say numbers don't matter but your example speaks of 50% more local numbers/unit superiority and the HP-based notion seems at odds with a campaign victory based measurement unless you mean singular k/d ratio measurement)?

Some data could be:

15 years: 48/52 % axis

2007-2012: 50/50 (with 1 tie)

2013-2016: 50 / 50

we could of course analyze the game on a campaign by campaign basis which would give you oh, say, 100% allied wins this campaign, and oddly, 100% axis wins in, say, campaign 92. and so on , ad infinitum. the longest campaign win streak is 5. there are a few '4's in the mix since day one. there are 3 month campaigns and 3 day campaigns. so hmm...

is the unbalance you perceive in player numbers? TOM? equipment and kit? player performance? % of sideswitchers each campaign? better, number of side switchers? number and quality of side switching players and squads? number and quality of HC? no HC? pre TOE? pre or post AOs? last week's patch? the patch before that?

if you want to prove unbalance based on player performance, which player performances exactly? k/d ratio? caps? bunker caps? straight up kills or armour destroyed? fbs blown? ms/frus placed? other?

if you want to prove unbalance based on kit> list the k/d ratio unbalances as you perceive them, unit by unit plz. (as many others have done many times)

please choose your data, give us your data analysis.

some other examples of what you call 'serious pvp games' and balance (other than red vs blue / same vs same) might help too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm giving 24-48 hours after campaign starts, check TOM stats and will stick with that underpop one for the rest of the campaign. This is my candy.

My little finger is saying me that axis might overpop in TOM again during the opening hours. I predict between 6 and 8% more TOM than allied after 24 hours.

If it's allied, I'm going to join DDZ.

If it's axis, i'm returning to BK.

Don't wait and just come allied then lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You threw out the overall win/loss ratio as if it meant something but campaign wins from another decade' date=' when the unit list and the terrain not to mention basic game structures like HC and brigades were different just aren't relevant.[/quote']

The rules in the NFL have changed over the last 10 years too but the field they play on is still the same. Same thing here.

I merely commented on the wrongness of your statement......and yes your still wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rules in the NFL have changed over the last 10 years too but the field they play on is still the same. Same thing here.

I merely commented on the wrongness of your statement......and yes your still wrong.

World War 2 online years ago played dramatically different from the way it does now. If you want to make a football analogy it's like trying to use a college team's win/loss from back in the days before forward passes were legal to judge their current performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't wait and just come allied then lol.

9,4% more TOM for axis and we haven't reached North Korean TZ yet.

They decided which side I play isn't that beautiful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
World War 2 online years ago played dramatically different from the way it does now. If you want to make a football analogy it's like trying to use a college team's win/loss from back in the days before forward passes were legal to judge their current performance.

LOL ok. Ninny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,4% more TOM for axis and we haven't reached North Korean TZ yet.

They decided which side I play isn't that beautiful?

Lolz 9.4 % :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
World War 2 online years ago played dramatically different from the way it does now. If you want to make a football analogy it's like trying to use a college team's win/loss from back in the days before forward passes were legal to judge their current performance.

sure.

1918 Notre Dame 10-1

2015 Notre Dame 10-3

you were saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am no fan of david01, he does have a point, different eras of major WWIIOL rules changes play differently.

I think the truck only FRU merits an Era-level change effect designation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has dropped a bit' date=' 106% as we speak.[/quote']

9.1% for axis - that was over my expectations for this campaign but still less than last two campaigns start which was around 12 an 14% after a day.

My formula is (Lower TOM - Highest TOM) / Highest TOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9.1% for axis - that was over my expectations for this campaign but still less than last two campaigns start which was around 12 an 14% after a day.

My formula is (Lower TOM - Highest TOM) / Highest TOM

I just divided the Higher TOM with the lower TOM and I did get 1,059 (106%).

Edited by pulfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I am no fan of david01, he does have a point, different eras of major WWIIOL rules changes play differently.

I think the truck only FRU merits an Era-level change effect designation.

sure, but except in the early 2001 no-campaign era, (axis weight) and arguably the british-french divide era, (axis weight/6 yearzzzz) the wins/losses during the MS, AO, HC, ToE, SD and mission leader FRU eras have been substantively even over the eras and within the eras:

ie. over the last 10-11 years although there has been map expansion, new units and new mechanics introduced, unit tweaks, americans, etc. etc. all of which changed gameplay and required adaptability by all players and both sides, its still balanced as far as campaign wins.

not sure what it means, or what the question is, but campaign win balance isn't the issue.

Edited by sorella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I am no fan of david01, he does have a point, different eras of major WWIIOL rules changes play differently.

I think the truck only FRU merits an Era-level change effect designation.

I could not agree more, however a partial campaign does not make an Era so we'll need to play this way for quite a few campaigns before that designation makes any sense or provides any kind of useful campaign win/loss ratio.

The point being made by some is that CRS over the years and throughout all the changes has somehow kept the campaign win/loss ratio pretty even. We have to wait and see if that still holds true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just divided the Higher TOM with the lower TOM and I did get 1' date='059 (106%).[/quote']

Just as an interesting point to the TOM thing, 1 person with 14 hours TOM = 14 people with 1 hour TOM. Which group do you think is going to take more ground ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

====

My formula is (Lower TOM - Highest TOM) / Highest TOM

====

The correct formula would be (lower-higher)/lower. This gives the proper percentage of how much more time they have.

Whereas (higher-lower)/higher would give how much less they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as an interesting point to the TOM thing' date=' 1 person with 14 hours TOM = 14 people with 1 hour TOM. Which group do you think is going to take more ground ??[/quote']

which begs the real question what's the AVG TOM (TOM/spawns). From there one can puzzle through the population level math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the side with more players will probably win if the difference is significative, but in equal conditions of ammount of players allies have much more chances to win. Imagine both sides with exactly the same ammount and quality of players (by quality I mean type of players: veterans, teamplay style, etc...) in these ideal conditions of balance you can see in the map that allies have an important piece of land (England) with about 25 cities which can only be attacked by crossing the sea with freighters transporting opels (95% of transports wouldn't arrive alive). Only this is an important strategic advantage. Therefore Axis weapons/panzers were nerfed time ago to "balance" the game. Both things make it impossible for axis to win unless they are clearly superior in numbers.

Note that this is my personal opinion, allied players would (and will) say that I'm telling you lies, that our nerfed weaponry/panzers is just a myth and will deny the existence of any unbalance that favours them, of course. You are free to believe what you want, if you are not comitted with a side just try both and soon will have your own opinion.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the side with more players will probably win if the difference is significative, but in equal conditions of ammount of players allies have much more chances to win. Imagine both sides with exactly the same ammount and quality of players (by quality I mean type of players: veterans, teamplay style, etc...) in these ideal conditions of balance you can see in the map that allies have an important piece of land (England) with about 25 cities which can only be attacked by crossing the sea with freighters transporting opels (95% of transports wouldn't arrive alive). Only this is an important strategic advantage. Therefore Axis weapons/panzers were nerfed time ago to "balance" the game. Both things make it impossible for axis to win unless they are clearly superior in numbers.

Note that this is my personal opinion, allied players would (and will) say that I'm telling you lies, that our nerfed weaponry/panzers is just a myth and will deny the existence of any unbalance that favours them, of course. You are free to believe what you want, if you are not comitted with a side just try both and soon will have your own opinion.

S!

I am an ally who will say that the Axis tank park has issues as a game, but most of the nerfing was done in 1941 and 2001, not 2011.

The game's design ends up rewarding Allied assault oriented tank designs, as opposed to Germany's more anti-tank/expert user orientation. Both terrain and spawn castle choices make this happen.

The other part are limitations of the universal vehicle paradigm chosen, the joule-to-effective-armor-by-angle-penetration, to model complexities of FHA and shattergap that would end up making the Axis tanks, especially the early ones, more survivable (although in the case of FHA they would be more vulnerable to later tier guns).

I greatly dispute the idea that the Axis tanks were nerfed to somehow balance out the game. I do think that they require more care to operate successfully and need a majority at a specific attack to maintain their flanks. In those conditions they can crush Allies just fine.

I also dispute that there was some nerfing involved re: England invasion, for many years now we have had a ruleset that allowed mission leaders to create FRUs by riding as infantry and glider attacking and so Axis have often won invading UK first, with the national factory victory change Axis could win with just that, an advantage that allows for a win with as little as 75% of the towns.

The truck FRU change will definitely make the UK invasion harder, but will also make the cross-channel return invasion harder as well, securing flanks better for a French factory finish (and again fewer towns required total of the map for victory, but to be fair Axis have more towns to take so that aspect balances out for the most part).

I suggest any reader here consider a broader perspective then either side to assess such questions.

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.