BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

241 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, sgthenning said:

so many ways to grief and you missed a lot of them. How about killing off all the engineers by just setting charges and let the charge kill you or grenade your self or jump off the church tower. seriously cant believe you are even discussing this.

Merlin was talking about a method of griefing from another game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2016 at 11:21 PM, Silky said:

The key to problem solving starts with a well defined problem.

What is the problem you're actually looking to solve? Define it, clearly, in simple terms

There are 2 problems, overall imbalance (total players on each side), and local imbalance, which is imbalance within an AO.

If a squad night results in some 20 people playing at once, and they are part of an AO with 10 other people, then you have a team of 30 on attack. If there are 6 defenders, that's a 5:1 local imbalance.

If the town is such that the forces arrayed against it are 5:1, that's actually realistic (how many men are in a Garrison vs a Brigade? How many Brigades/Garrisons vs 1 Garrison would be a 5:1 advantage?). If, however, the 30 guys are in one Brigade, and it's attacking 2 Brigades, then they have a 5:1 advantage when they should have a 2:1 disadvantage.

Local spawning limits would help mitigate this. Compare the forces in the AO vs DO, and cap spawning from linked facilities/objects (depots/MSPs) such that the relative balance is right. So id the 5:1 attack is supposed to be 5:1, it happens as now. If it's in fact supposed to be 1:2 the other way, and there are 6 defenders, then the attackers get NO spawns from depots or MSPs in that AO until the players in that AO drop below 3. Those players can spawn at the origin town or FB, however. This results in them taking longer to get back into the game, but feels different than annoying spawn delays. It likely improves them as a unit, since they will group up (which might make them more, not less likely to win).

As for the overall imbalance issue, perhaps AO timers could change with total relative population?

The entire point of AOs is to allow the defense to prepare. That doesn't mean time for a handful to spawn into town as targets, it needs to be long enough that if the town has local terrain important to defense, that they have time to move ATGs and FMS there well ahead of an enemy attack---as any of us would do if we were tasked with defending the town with X units, and they were forced to sit where we put them 24/7. As played, or with proximity AOs in place, this will cease to be a function of AOs. The lower pop side, already undermanned will NOT be able to leave a credible defense force spread out over rational approaches to town  (as any CO would do tasked with defense of his position). Prox AOs and overpop will result in organized groups hitting AOs like a steamroller, I bet. It triggers the defense deathmatch in town, literally the worst play the game has to offer, and it is frustrating when underpop, and makes people rage quit. I'm fine with losing a hard fought battle, I just want it to feel like a battle. When you are underpop, and you try to win/hold, you spend 99.999% of the time staring at a wall/stairwell (or running back to that spot to do so).

Back to the AO timer thing. The more overpop a side is, the longer the AO timer should be---and more than that. They will still then set up, and have to hold the town longer before tables come up (sorry, old language there, lol). I don't want that. I want the AO timer to not let them set off EWS until the timer goes off, else it resets. So same AO timer to make things capturable---maybe shorter, in fact---but if they set off EWS before that, the town is not capturable until they pull back, then the timer goes. The defense needs to be able to get in place (underpop that it is). Remember, "into place" means "where it by all rights should be 24/7 anyway). Combine this with the relative unit strength depot/MS spawning, and then the defenders can actually have some effect, and not feel hopeless. They can lose, but inflict damage. If the resupply is realistic, then the next attack might be with an understrength Brigade. The UP side can feel like they're losing ground, but doing some good.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this post is redundant to others as I have not read everything that has been posted on this issue (but I have read a lot of it).

One thing I did not see discussed is the long-last effect of imbalance.  Lets say axis are over pop for 2 hours.  In this 2 hours they can flip fbs with impunity, bomb allied factories to rubble and take towns.  So when the game gets back to balance, the allies find themselves with no fbs and spawnlists  that are do not repopulate at the same rate as the axis.  There is also the matter of the overpop side having the resources to fix all their AI when they take a town.  An allied player, after playing under these conditions for a few minutes, decides maybe he should call his mother-in-law because hearing about her grandkids is more rewarding than the wwii online experience.  The allied player logs off, and the axis are over pop.  Rinse and repeat.

There are some things that could be done to correct this and might even help with the "local" imbalance/spawn delay/captimers:

Over pop sides:

Could only flip fbs that are associated with an AO.  This would drive battles to fbs which I think are easier to defend than towns.

Would have their fbs regenerate at a slower rate than when sides are balanced.

Automatically loose fbs if the underpop side puts an AO a town owned by the overpop side.  (this obviously could not happen to flip the fb of an active AO)

Preclude overpop from RDP raids.

Preclude a side from repairing AI while over pop

Preclude a side from taking down AI while over pop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the over pop side could not spawn armor w/o it being multi-crewed?

Uses some of the extra pop, and keeps the total number of tanks camping lower.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, delems said:

What if the over pop side could not spawn armor w/o it being multi-crewed?

Uses some of the extra pop, and keeps the total number of tanks camping lower.

That's an interesting idea. Uses pop, but likely also has the plus of making the weapon more effective.

A "carrot" version of this would be to have spawn delays, but multi-crew never have spawn delays. A better idea might be that you can join a vehicle "in flight" as crew, with no spawn delay, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bad there is no way to have AI bots fly starter level bombers against Overpop.  That would force the Overpop side to divert forces to AA defense. If you had one dedicated AI bomber per 5 people over pop that is enough firepower to force the attacker to adapt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mobile spawns for the overpop side (extending to no fb spawning for extreme imbalance}.

Edited by gavalink
for conciseness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD penalty based on % TOM throughout campaign

So even if you are underpop with 15% TOM advantage over a campaign, you get spawn delay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... This was inspired by something I saw in Breskens yesterday morning  during TZ3. Allies had 5 players on at the time, Based on active missions, comms and observation. The Axis was camping and capping the bunker about 10 minutes after they declared the AO, and I was done feeding their stats. Then I noticed that we had three new Allied players (Riflemen) running together in a circle hiding from the Axis. They had some good ideas trying to stay together, and were using local chat. Something vets know better than to do, but it let them communicate. I heard their conversation, and it caught my attention. It went something like this:

R1: WTH, We're getting killed out here! What are we supposed to do?

R2: WTF man? The Germans are everywhere? Where are the Allied players?

R3: The Germans are SO OP. We're getting our a$$e$ kicked. I wanted to play Allied but this is F*****d up!

R1: I didn't sign on for this. We don't have a chance.

The other two agreed. I thought about talking to them but then I got shot. When I looked at the mission screen they were gone. When I thought about it later, I could only imagine that they either quit or decided that the only chance they have at winning is to go German. It sucked, because these were NEW players who had the bad luck to play TZ3 at the start. I can imagine it's pretty common, and would not be surprised if Axis gets a bunch of new players from this situation... which of course, makes the population imbalance worse with the loss of every dedicated Allied player.

But listening to them, I realized that in the middle of it all... they might have  had more fun if they had a squad and were trained. They had good instincts, but no idea of what to do or how. But realistically speaking, it's currently IMPOSSIBLE to train new Allied players in TZ3. The fact is that we almost always run with less than 10 players,we have no dedicated TZ3 squads, and if we took 1-2 vets to train new players... that would reduce our PB more, and, in addition, there is no way to train them against a live opponent, because all they can do is get creamed.

I then started thinking about the training server...  and thought about how it would be easier to train them there, except for the fact that there aren't any live opponents there... but what if there were?

I also thought about the comments by many players that  they care more about battles than the campaigns.  And this got me thinking... We have two servers.

So... after all that... Here's my rough suggestion. It's in multiple parts.

Part 1. We make one section of the map on the training server a training town. Trainers can go there. We could have training for both sides  and even combat events to practice. New players can come here to learn how to play, in addition to the basic lessons in the intro.

Part 2.  CRS implements the idea of Campaign side choice ON THE CAMPAIGN SERVER. When a player goes to log in the first time on the Campaign server, they are offered a choice of Axis or Allied or neutral for that campaign. Members of a Squad can simply choose the side their Squad is on. Neutral players can freely swap sides during the Campaign

Part 3. CRS implements a priority logon for the Campaign server during a Campaign AHC/GHC, then Builders, Heroes, players who have chosen a side and neutral players

Part 4. When the Campaign is ongoing, the system monitors the population. If the population gets beyond 2-1 (suggested number), the server locks additional logins for the OP side to maintain this pop ratio. AHC and GHC are exempt. Second accounts may not log in to the Campaign server while a lock is in progress, so as to allow as many individual players to participate in the Campaign as possible. No Spawn delays. No special timers. Campaign pop remains relatively fair. AHC and GHC members  and Free Trial members are exempt from the pop lock.

Part 5. CRS makes the Training Server a Freeform Server. Intermission supply. Anyone can log in at any time, and if they don't want to play the campaign, they just join into the local battle scenario. System sets AOs and DO, and players play in those areas. There is no pop cap...but if players want someone to fight, they will have to set up sides. Either some will play Allied, or the Germans will have no one to fight. A totally Freeform server. CRS or players can organize events and contests or whatever as well.
 

Utilizing this concept would create an environment where everyone can log in and play, but the Campaigns become free of the pop issues that we have suffered fwhat seems like forever. If a player is part of the OP side, and it is locked on the Campaign server, they can simply log onto the Freeform server, and play intermission style. If a Neutral player is locked from one side, they can log on to the underpopped side and play the Campaign.

This is just a rough suggestion of the concept... but it might work...

S!S!S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not enough players to fragment the pop into 2 servers, frankly, though I can see the point of letting the grossly OP people play, but somewhere else---I think they will simply not play.

What matters is local imbalance, not just total server pop side by side.

The "map" level of the game makes no sense if the supposed units on the map are meaningless. As others have said, SD only applies to people who die, and the larger the local imbalance, the less people on the OP side get killed for obvious reasons. As a result the concept of the "spawn list" being "supply" and somehow relating to unit strength is rubbish.

30 players launching an attack from a depleted Garrison town will WTF Pwn 5-10 people in a town with as many ABs/BDEs/etc as can possibly exist in the game. No chance, not even a speed bump as the defenders approach the min sustainable defense in game (1 per CP, plus some floaters?). Note that the 30 players could be on a server where the pop is even, say 50 per side, and their 20 remaining people are 1 guy moling another AO, 9 on D in one town, and 10 on D in another. In that one AO, they dominate, and in a way that is utterly wrong on the map level view of the game. 1 Garrison should not attack 3 BDEs and win, if they do, the map level mechanics are broken. It should in fact be the other way around---they should want to telegraph attacks by massing multiple units to launch an attack.

Balance mechanics should be tied to local issues.

1. On sides rules for MSPs. (this should be a thing, period) Partially for reasons that follow, partially to make UP defenders able to focus more, and to make spawnable facilities more important. This limits range from their spawn point usually (as it should, see below). MSP rules tweaked to facilitate below as needed.

2. Spawning into an AO or DO is tied to the units attacking. A unit is attacking if linked to the target town, and units have the AO as an objective (MSPs might be required to be within some range of a particular AO, so you can't spawn a truck, set the target as town F, then place MSP for town A).

3. Any number of players can spawn at the FB or at the attacking town that wish to, but spawning at any MSP or spawnable depot is limited such that the total players spawned into missions with the AO as a target do not exceed the relative balance of attacking to defending units. Let's treat a garrison as equal to a BDE for this example. 1 BDE, plus a Garrison attack a town with 1 Garrison as its defense. That gives the attackers 2:1 odds (2 meta units to 1). Same as the local OP example above, 30 attackers all spawn at the FB, and drive to town vs 5 defenders. They roll the town. Congrats (?). Now if only a few spawn at the FB (some trucks and armor), and set up some FMS (standard current attack, with inf to spawn at the MSP), then the situation is different. Say 3 FMS are set, and 7 other units (tanks, ATG, etc). If the 3 truck drivers spawn as inf, the AO is now 2:1 vs the defenders (the 7 units that spawned at the FB, plus 3 inf at the FMSes is 10, and the defense is 5). The FMS are still there, but no one can spawn, unless a unit dies, or the number of defenders increases. For every new defender that shows up in the DO, the FMSes allow 2 new attackers. If those other 20 people want to participate in the attack, they can, but they cannot use an FMS, they MUST spawn at the FB. If the attack needs inf, they show up the old-fashioned way, they drive in from the FB.

The above system functions like a spawn delay that actually works, yet the players are not watching a timer tick down, they are in the game. They can be attacked. They can be interdicted/cut. The 5 defenders have a chance commensurate with what the operational map says they have (fighting twice as many attackers over a long term WRT spawn lists).

So in a hybrid example where most of the 30 players spawn at the FB, and some FMS are also set (or the spawnable is taken)., they have 30 vs 5, but the 5 defenders know that very likely everyone they kill is not coming back. That's huge for the defense to bother. Your defense actually matters, if you retake a CP, they likely don't get inf to it for the time it takes to drive from the FB.

Roll attacks can still happen, you just have to spawn everyone in at once to do it, and if the D is good, you might get stopped since every kill they make brings the battle close to operational level parity. Ideally the new UI would accommodate this change such that players can see where they can spawn immediately (HC could be allowed to globally sort so that the "instant action" list (like active battles) puts missions at the top that the HC wants pushed, so if they mark an attack as P1, then when that AO allows spawning, that mission floats to the top as soon as people can actually spawn.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, shagher said:

How about we spend our energy improving squads tactics and Communications AND having fun and accepting the fact that the game isn't made to be balanced.

There Will be a winning side... And the other side.... Every time Or we will be stuck center map playing catch... Till everyone is bored and game is gone.

Squads can change side if they dont mind it and some do.... Just had one Allie going AXIS lately and WHIPS went Allie several times to turn things around.... There you go... That also helps remove the horrible SD that irritates every paying customer... A unique business concept I must say....

 

Got rolled 2 campaign ago....

Alternately rolling the map is no game at all. The side with the numbers wins, and it sucks for the side that is grossly underpop.

A location based solution allows both sides to have a chance to win any given fight on terms that match the local population, and the operational units at hand. It still allows squads to mass forces, but they will either need the HC to move units so they have operational (map) level supply/numbers (attacking brigades), or they need to pick their jump off points such that multiple towns (or at least 1 large one with multiple garrisons) link to the target so that they can utilize their numbers. Many towns are linked by 3 enemy towns. If you have 3 towns attacking 1 town, and each has a Garrison, the target is defacto at a 3:1 disadvantage. If the target has a BDE in addition, it's 3:2, but if each of the attacking towns has a BDE, it's actually back to 3:1. So that squad of 30 can attack a town with 10 defenders, and the attack is FAIR, and no one has spawn delay, etc.

That's why people hate being underpop, it just doesn't seem fair. Desperate is fine if it's fair. The game pretends that there is supply and units. Make there be units that matter, it's one of the few things in ww2ol that the devs have control over that can make it feel right/fair. Fair doesn't mean a 50/50 chance of winning, fair means that a reasonable defense has a chance of winning that meets the strength of the unit on the map. If a bunch of BDEs are in a town, and it falls during low pop to a few moles, is that "fair?" Is it good gameplay? Good game design? Is it FUN? I'd say "no" to all four of those questions.

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tater said:

There are not enough players to fragment the pop into 2 servers, frankly, though I can see the point of letting the grossly OP people play, but somewhere else---I think they will simply not play.

What matters is local imbalance, not just total server pop side by side.

The "map" level of the game makes no sense if the supposed units on the map are meaningless. As others have said, SD only applies to people who die, and the larger the local imbalance, the less people on the OP side get killed for obvious reasons. As a result the concept of the "spawn list" being "supply" and somehow relating to unit strength is rubbish.

30 players launching an attack from a depleted Garrison town will WTF Pwn 5-10 people in a town with as many ABs/BDEs/etc as can possibly exist in the game. No chance, not even a speed bump as the defenders approach the min sustainable defense in game (1 per CP, plus some floaters?). Note that the 30 players could be on a server where the pop is even, say 50 per side, and their 20 remaining people are 1 guy moling another AO, 9 on D in one town, and 10 on D in another. In that one AO, they dominate, and in a way that is utterly wrong on the map level view of the game. 1 Garrison should not attack 3 BDEs and win, if they do, the map level mechanics are broken. It should in fact be the other way around---they should want to telegraph attacks by massing multiple units to launch an attack.

Balance mechanics should be tied to local issues.

1. On sides rules for MSPs. (this should be a thing, period) Partially for reasons that follow, partially to make UP defenders able to focus more, and to make spawnable facilities more important. This limits range from their spawn point usually (as it should, see below). MSP rules tweaked to facilitate below as needed.

2. Spawning into an AO or DO is tied to the units attacking. A unit is attacking if linked to the target town, and units have the AO as an objective (MSPs might be required to be within some range of a particular AO, so you can't spawn a truck, set the target as town F, then place MSP for town A).

3. Any number of players can spawn at the FB or at the attacking town that wish to, but spawning at any MSP or spawnable depot is limited such that the total players spawned into missions with the AO as a target do not exceed the relative balance of attacking to defending units. Let's treat a garrison as equal to a BDE for this example. 1 BDE, plus a Garrison attack a town with 1 Garrison as its defense. That gives the attackers 2:1 odds (2 meta units to 1). Same as the local OP example above, 30 attackers all spawn at the FB, and drive to town vs 5 defenders. They roll the town. Congrats (?). Now if only a few spawn at the FB (some trucks and armor), and set up some FMS (standard current attack, with inf to spawn at the MSP), then the situation is different. Say 3 FMS are set, and 7 other units (tanks, ATG, etc). If the 3 truck drivers spawn as inf, the AO is now 2:1 vs the defenders (the 7 units that spawned at the FB, plus 3 inf at the FMSes is 10, and the defense is 5). The FMS are still there, but no one can spawn, unless a unit dies, or the number of defenders increases. For every new defender that shows up in the DO, the FMSes allow 2 new attackers. If those other 20 people want to participate in the attack, they can, but they cannot use an FMS, they MUST spawn at the FB. If the attack needs inf, they show up the old-fashioned way, they drive in from the FB.

The above system functions like a spawn delay that actually works, yet the players are not watching a timer tick down, they are in the game. They can be attacked. They can be interdicted/cut. The 5 defenders have a chance commensurate with what the operational map says they have (fighting twice as many attackers over a long term WRT spawn lists).

So in a hybrid example where most of the 30 players spawn at the FB, and some FMS are also set (or the spawnable is taken)., they have 30 vs 5, but the 5 defenders know that very likely everyone they kill is not coming back. That's huge for the defense to bother. Your defense actually matters, if you retake a CP, they likely don't get inf to it for the time it takes to drive from the FB.

Roll attacks can still happen, you just have to spawn everyone in at once to do it, and if the D is good, you might get stopped since every kill they make brings the battle close to operational level parity. Ideally the new UI would accommodate this change such that players can see where they can spawn immediately (HC could be allowed to globally sort so that the "instant action" list (like active battles) puts missions at the top that the HC wants pushed, so if they mark an attack as P1, then when that AO allows spawning, that mission floats to the top as soon as people can actually spawn.

Simply put. This will never be another BF 1942. It will not be Forgotten Hope...It will not be CoD, You can use terms like Location solution, but what you are really  saying that is that WWII Online  needs to become just like those and that we need to start playing the same kind of small map deathmatch mode that they all do. Why do you keep arguing for our game to become just another twitch clone?

If THAT was what the rest of us wanted... Why the Hell would we here in the first place? I played all the other multiplayer WWII shooters out there for years before I came here. Seven years later, and I haven't played any of the games I played semi-religiously before I came to WWIIOL since.

Maybe... Just maybe many of the rest of us want something different...

Now, honestly, I would agree with about POP... but if we are having battles of 3 to 1 and worse... than there are obviously players on one side who COULD be playing on a second server... maybe fighting each other... instead of playing the whack a mole game. The sad thing is that your posts say that you don't think that it's a bad thing, that one side constantly gets clobbered IF the game works the way that you want it to. And your posts keep saying that we have to do things your way. No room for other suggestions...no room to even consider another solution. 

Fact... any fight where it's 30 versus 5 is so far out of whack that any of the five who doesn't log out is just asking for it.
Fact... Say you get your deathmatch... Why in the Hell would any Allied players agree to it? It makes OUR situation just as bad or worse; AND it allows only one kind of gameplay; which also loses us a good n umber of players who don't want what you want...

The Allied side is severely underpopulated. It needs new dedicated Allied players. THAT is a fact. Not side swappers... but new ALLIED players who aren't planning on playing Axis. But the current situation is about ten times harder on new Allieds than the game itself, which already has a steep learning curve. New Allied players keep having the same experience that the three guys did last night... and many never get to have any fun playing Allied. So they quit or try Axis and join the zerg, usually for good. Add to that most Allied vets are gone. Who is left to train new guys?

Your suggestions might be great IF we were willing to throw our game into the crapper and start over as a deathmatch clone, This thread, however, is dedicated to finding a solution that lets us keep our game and help fix the pop; which is what we want to do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Simply put. This will never be another BF 1942. It will not be Forgotten Hope...It will not be CoD, You can use terms like Location solution, but what you are really  saying that is that WWII Online  needs to become just like those and that we need to start playing the same kind of small map deathmatch mode that they all do. Why do you keep arguing for our game to become just another twitch clone?

Never played any of those, except maybe the first version of CoD.

WTF are you talking about? Don't presume to tell me what I am "really saying," I said what I was really saying quite well. The only imbalance that matters in ww2ol gameplay is local imbalance. This is definitionally true. If one side has 10 people on, and the other has 1000, but the 1000 are all driving DDs around, the 10 inf on the other side can run the map. Imbalance ONLY matters locally. It doesn;t matter to me that 2 ei are moling 'Twerp, hunted by 20 people (they are outnumbered!) if the town I am in somewhere else has 3 defenders, and 30 attackers. It's poor game design to say that we need to convince the 20 in Antwerp to leave the town to fall to a couple moles so that we can defend another town, then pretend that the game is "meta" with a huge map, and large units in play. It's at best a platoon level game with delusions of being larger. That's fine, but it should work, and imbalance is a problem.

You say I want a small map (odd, since I have literally never said that). Where does the map change in my suggestion? Literally nothing changes about the current game except on-sides MSPs (which should have been the rules from the very start---which I suggested back in the day), and the fact that RESPAWNING is limited to balance the sides within an AO to the ratio of units PLACED ON THE MAP BY PLAYERS attacking vs defending. This will then result in some battles during unbalanced time periods having fewer people on one side than now. It will also require that the HCs think slightly differently about supply (now they think total spawn lists, and the 2 map similarly, though my idea is more tactical---if you want sustained odds of X:1, stack X units against the defender.

Your suggestion is has excess people playing some other game (that won't happen), which results in what? Fewer people on one side than now.

BTW, right now, WW2OL is already a small map deathmatch, only with worse terrain. It's effectively small map, because the only play that matters happens in the SMALL towns. The towns are cartoonish, the terrain is not at human scale (meaning not enough cover/concealment at scales that are some fraction of a person (a few cm)), the terrain is not destructable, or penetrable by weapons, and perhaps most importantly, it's BORING. The crux of gameplay requires fighting in a room smaller than my living room, staring at a stair or doorway. You seem to think it's big because you drive a truck around a lot. Good for you, it's needed in the game so that people can literally RUN from the spot closest to town you drive to, so they can stare at a wall.

You seem utterly wed to the status quo, why even post in suggestions when what you want is the same lousy gameplay we've had since forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

Never played any of those, except maybe the first version of CoD.

WTF are you talking about? Don't presume to tell me what I am "really saying," I said what I was really saying quite well. The only imbalance that matters in ww2ol gameplay is local imbalance. This is definitionally true. If one side has 10 people on, and the other has 1000, but the 1000 are all driving DDs around, the 10 inf on the other side can run the map. Imbalance ONLY matters locally. It doesn;t matter to me that 2 ei are moling 'Twerp, hunted by 20 people (they are outnumbered!) if the town I am in somewhere else has 3 defenders, and 30 attackers. It's poor game design to say that we need to convince the 20 in Antwerp to leave the town to fall to a couple moles so that we can defend another town, then pretend that the game is "meta" with a huge map, and large units in play. It's at best a platoon level game with delusions of being larger. That's fine, but it should work, and imbalance is a problem.

You say I want a small map (odd, since I have literally never said that). Where does the map change in my suggestion? Literally nothing changes about the current game except on-sides MSPs (which should have been the rules from the very start---which I suggested back in the day), and the fact that RESPAWNING is limited to balance the sides within an AO to the ratio of units PLACED ON THE MAP BY PLAYERS attacking vs defending. This will then result in some battles during unbalanced time periods having fewer people on one side than now. It will also require that the HCs think slightly differently about supply (now they think total spawn lists, and the 2 map similarly, though my idea is more tactical---if you want sustained odds of X:1, stack X units against the defender.

Your suggestion is has excess people playing some other game (that won't happen), which results in what? Fewer people on one side than now.

BTW, right now, WW2OL is already a small map deathmatch, only with worse terrain. It's effectively small map, because the only play that matters happens in the SMALL towns. The towns are cartoonish, the terrain is not at human scale (meaning not enough cover/concealment at scales that are some fraction of a person (a few cm)), the terrain is not destructable, or penetrable by weapons, and perhaps most importantly, it's BORING. The crux of gameplay requires fighting in a room smaller than my living room, staring at a stair or doorway. You seem to think it's big because you drive a truck around a lot. Good for you, it's needed in the game so that people can literally RUN from the spot closest to town you drive to, so they can stare at a wall.

You seem utterly wed to the status quo, why even post in suggestions when what you want is the same lousy gameplay we've had since forever?

First and foremost: If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize.

Your focus on localized imbalance suggests the concept that the game should care only about that point; especially when you say that such imbalance is the only imbalance that matters. This is where we must have a disconnect, and misunderstanding.

You have stated something to the effect previously that the minimum effective defense force is 1 player per CP and bunker. Well...this  not exactly true. it somehow assumes that 1 defender in a CP is able to defend it against 2 or more attackers. If the attacker works in groups of 2 or more... the defender had better have ungodly skills, or they will own that CP... now things change instantly. It's still 2-1, but now the attackers own 1 CP. the 'extra defender' now has to try to retake that CP by himself (unlikely) or try to help another defender. Each time this happens; assuming the attacker leaves 1 CP guard... the attackers can devote more to each group attacking each CP. They can easily camp the spawns, roads and AB to prevent the defenders from being able to do anything. Any defensive force to be effective has to have CPs guarded AND have people outside those buildings. Or an attacker can simply cut them down and win. This would be with a local imbalance... at least 2-1. And on sides MSPs would not be a factor unless the defenders could have a chance to destroy them.

I have been in a battle... defending a town with 4-5 people (All we have online). But then, at the same time, the OP side was  busting FB after FB. (A major factor in moving maps) Simultaneously, I noted that there was EWS in the next town, where someone was already setting up the enemy's next attack. In one TZ3 period, I have seen the Axis hold us pinned defending on the ground, have extra people flying and bombing us from the air,  take town after town, regardless of supply, and STILL take every single FB on the map.  This was more than localized population imbalance, and it mattered.

But I'm going to step away from that. The fact is that this game needs to have players dedicated to both sides. It has to gain new players on both sides, and it has to have vets to teach them how to play the game. Right now, that only really applies to one side. The number of dedicated Allied players is growing smaller, and we're not getting many new ones, if any. I can't speak for the Axis, but I doubt that they have this issue. Heck, I see vets who play Allied...we get hammered for a few hours, and a few minutes later those same vets are killing us as Axis. Why? So they can win. They know that they are adding to the imbalance, but they reach a point where they don't care.

Something has to be done to level the playing field long enough so that we can get some new blood who feel like they can have fun playing Allied.
Because if we don't, then sooner or later, we're going to run out of dedicated Allied players. 

Maybe my idea is not the best one ever...but I am trying to help make the game population find a way to stabilize as a whole. That means more dedicated Allied players and squads, so that the Allies can have fun, and so that the Axis have opponents to actually fight. I don;t necessarily care WHO comes up with a suggestion that works... I'd support almost any viable solution.

As far as your statement about game play? I DO love this game. I think it's the best overall experience that I've ever had in a game. So what if it doesn't have all of the new bells and whistles? WWII Online has it's own feel... it's own style. I'm not against some changes, as long as they enhance the game that exists. I don't want to see it become a new game. The one that we have is fantastic. It's outlasted most other online games for a reason, even when it couldn't grow or improve at all. That says something. And as far as staring at a wall?  I'd be all for looking into small scale area capture if we could find some relative pop equality.  I think it would be fun to guard Capture Points that are both inside like we have now, or a combination of inside and outside in a small area, where  a defender has to be hunted down and can keep moving within that area before the attacker can begin to cap it.

I respect some of your ideas, Tater. I really do. But I can't agree that local imbalance is all that matters, neighbor. I just can't. Have a great day.
S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what the minimal effective (marginally effective) defense is, server pop controls the win. If there is enough of an overbalance, 1 side can always zerg more players in. Of course 2:1 odds at a CP wins most of the time (assuming they attack at once, and don't feed in piecemeal). My point at the "operational" level (Brigades on the map) is that if the spawn list balance of attacker to defender is 2:1, then that local overbalance (at the town level, or the CP level) is entirely reasonable. 2:1 at every CP is reasonable in that case.

The contrary, where 1 Garrison attacks a town with a Garrison and a BDE, but the attackers have 2:1 odd (possible right now) makes no operational sense at all. The attackers should be against defenders that outnumber them 2:1...

The "supply" model (current) could show us that many more defenders are spawning than attackers, even if the defenders are outnumbered 2:1. Maybe 2:1, maybe 4:1---that seems like the model is working, 2X the supply, and more than 2X the defenders---but they are spawning so many because they are DYING constantly, getting camped. The attackers are killing way more than they get killed, because when you have the numbers, the game works better all around. When you swarm a place, you know that there are friends on your flanks. You are safer from the porosity of the ww2ol battlefield. You also just have a lower chance of being shot, as the lower number defenders have more people to aim at. If there are 4 ei in view, and the guy shooting is a perfect shot, you have a 1 in 4 chance of death instead of 100% if you are the only ei visible. It's unreasonable to suggest that at attack against defenders that massively outnumber them should usually succeed, but in ww2ol, if the operational units are always against the attacker, but the attacker has grossly more players in that AO, the attacker pretty much always wins. This puts the lie to the operational---large map---nature of the game.

The goal of the large, operational ww2ol map should be to set up battles that match the operational conditions at some level. Currently, this is idea that "supply" represents this dynamic. You stack units for attack, and attrit the enemy more than they can attrit you, then the side with more stacked units wins (what we expect to happen much of the time). The problme of course is (once again) the side that is much lower pop loses units faster---much faster---than the OP side. Spawn delay actually exacerbates this problem! The OP side spawns new people in a little less quickly, which means they attrit slower. If the OP is very slight, this likely works out, but if the local pop imbalance is large, the SD doesn't really change the local balance because the large number of attackers simply don't die very often, so the defenders never get a real chance to attrit them.

Local balancing---and remember, this is NOT making the 2 sides equal in every AO, it's making the 2 sides mimic the relative unit strength in the attack/defense---solves many problems.

The overall team level OP state can decide what happens here, in my scheme the defense drives the numbers.

If the DO has 1 Garrison and 1 BDE, and the attackers have 2 Garrisons, and 2 BDEs (2 linked towns), the defenders are at a 2:1 disadvantage. So if the defense only has 6 people on, respawns on the attack (depot/FMS spawning) is capped such that only no more than 12 are on the attack, so those players have to spawn at the FB, and drive in (or truck drivers drive them). What if the side defending is the OP side in the server at large, though? Seems unfair that they should drive the defense numbers, since they could put 10 people on a DO, and the attackers might have 2:1 operational advantage, but lack the 20 players to use that, right? So perhaps we say that local imbalance is done by limiting attacking MSP/Depot spawning to not exceed the AO/DO ratio, and we hadd that the side that sets the number is the globally UP side.

So if one side has 60 players, and the other side has 40, the side with 40 always sets the relative balance. If the 40 player side attacks (we'll use the same operational 2:1 example, 2 towns attacking 1 town) with 18 players, the defense will be disallowed spawning past 9 players at once from the DO. They can add defense players, but they have to drive in from elsewhere. This allows the UP side to make meaningful attacks. We might also have a rule that attacks require some minimum number of players to be limited at all. An attack with 4 players might not constrain anyone in either direction, there might be no limits until one of the sides exceeds 10 players or something. The goal is to tweak it such that the operational map matters, even during low pop (so a handful don;t roll the map), and so that battles happen with matchups that seem reasonable given the units on the map. A garrison doesn't take a 3 AB town in 30 minutes because not enough people are on to defend it, even though it is supposedly jammed with imaginary troops.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.