BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

288 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, suntzu57 said:

On number three, the idea would be for the underpop side to be able to attack an objective, either on the ground or by air, without the overpop side getting a warning that there are troops or planes in the area. Again, the idea is to be able to allow a few players (underpop) be able to make a significant impact in the campaign, which will at least make the game more entertaining for them. It probably won't change the outcome of the campaign, but it would give underpop players a way to enjoy gameplay. On number one...yeah, I think it would be a lot of fun. Might even have some sideswitch to the underpop side to be able to play with it.

This can be gamed preaty easy...   "ok everyong moving to new  obj  depawn cept for so and so who are  settign  fms' and the 2 tanks  setting up ot camp" once ao up   spawni nthen WE now have tonw camped  presetup AND have  sd!!!! for a few min LOLOL"

Share this post


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

Not just an overall population increase. If one side normally outnumbers the other side say 3 to 1; and the overall population rises by 20 percent across both sides evenly... the problem will still be there. Granted it might not seem that way if there are enough players online all the time, but 3-1 is still 3-1.
What needs to happen is that there needs to be an increase in the number of dedicated players for the side that is normally underpopped. Unless the disproportionate side populations issue is addressed, an increased population would help the overall game numbers, but would completely fail to have any effective impact on the side imbalances.

This is precisely why my comments about local imbalances as weighted to operational units matters.

I don;t see any solution, ever, that will address imbalance. A percentage of people will never switch sides, and the entire nature of the game pushes the group goal of moving your side (during a given campaign). I don't see anything to encourage side switching as a workable solution. Also, as you say total pop doesn't matter if it's imbalanced, and in fact it is worse than that.

Defense in this game, and indeed offensive defense is the same. We call it "guarding." If you want to keep a CP, you guard it. If you capture a CP on attack---and you want to keep it---you also guard it. This results in some minimal number of people to be effective at holding what you have, with more required to increase the number of facilities you have. The number varies by town, and relative attack (2 guards is a huge force multiplier, just as 2 attackers are, and better on D since they can usually return to the CP faster than attackers can), but none the less for a given game state of population within an AO, there is a minimum number of people required to move the dial.

That's why the local imbalance dominates. Local imbalance correction is still 100% player controlled, and it's in line with the meta goals of the operational, "Map" level game. If you want to utilize your current OP status to attack 3:1, then you place an AO where you have 3:1 operational odds, or you move brigades such that you have 3:1 operational odds. In either of those cases, local play is 100% unchanged from the current game. If you also have a harassing attack from 1 unit (garrison or BDE) to a town with 2 units, then the local respawn limits would apply, and that would allow the UP defender to adequately defend in an operationally realistic matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll currently live in game to ask 

 

What would best help balance population between sides?

1Penalties for the overpopulated side

2Bonuses for the underpopulated side

3Auto-balance queue at login

4Side-lock per campaign

5Adding map overview & infos on the side selection screen

6Displaying more detailed population balance information (per AO, branch, rank...)

7Other

8No opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but I fail to see how side lock would help.
One: If the side lock simply has a player locked to a side... it doesn't change anything except for side swappers, who would have to choose one side or the other.
Two: If the side lock was set to a percentage, and then prevented players from signing up for the side they want until the opposing side is equaled out, people will get VERY upset, especially those who belong to side specific squads and can't sign up for the side their Squad belongs to.
Three: If CRS attempted to mitigate #2 above by giving priority to those who belong to side specific Squads, then lone wolf players would become very upset.
Four HC members would have to be given a pass.

Share this post


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

I hate to say it, but I fail to see how side lock would help.

It would be a starting point or baseline so to speak to determine the "initial" commited population numbers per side.  From there mechanisims can be put in place on top of that to help balance out population fluctuations during peak and off peak times.

My guess "most" of the vets are playing one side or the other without switching anyway so it would not really affect them per say anyway.  Its the sideswitchers and what have you whom it may impact but how hard is it really to just play one side for 10-14 days anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bmw said:

It would be a starting point or baseline so to speak to determine the "initial" commited population numbers per side.  From there mechanisims can be put in place on top of that to help balance out population fluctuations during peak and off peak times.

My guess "most" of the vets are playing one side or the other without switching anyway so it would not really affect them per say anyway.  Its the sideswitchers and what have you whom it may impact but how hard is it really to just play one side for 10-14 days anyway.

I get what you're saying, but we already KNOW that the majority of players would choose Axis. Asking them to choose a side would not have much, if any, effect on the population.

I'm pretty sure CRS already knows, at least in the ballpark, the numbers on how bad the imbalance is.

Sidelock only has an effect if it is somehow a limiting factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side lock would only be useful for the people privy to the data*. The actual numbers, hour by hour. Spawn and death numbers are very hard to parse into actual players, and a solution that might be very effective for a 5% difference in population might do nothing meaningful to a 2:1 difference.

 

*for clarity: What I mean is a temporary locked sides to establish which side has what population, when, more often than not.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side lock could make things worse. Some players play the underpop side, a practice that helps create balance.  For some reason people hate side switchers, but they are the ones who help balance.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, matamor said:

Seen quite few names going for the overpop creating larger pop imbalance. 

really what do you care all you do is camp stuff better for you to play the underpop side so you can increase your kill count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested half price subscriptions to play underpop side only and a lot of people seemed to think it was a good idea, but xoom shut it down real quick unfortunately

Edited by dfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sgthenning said:

really what do you care all you do is camp stuff better for you to play the underpop side so you can increase your kill count.

You are right. Underpop or overpop, you pad my stats quite good. Continue your good work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people don't like spawn delay- playing the under pop side is very appealing.

I have done it in the past too.  Nothing to do about padding my or other peoples stats. (I think I may pad others stats more than my own)

 

 

Share this post


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

I suggested half price subscriptions to play underpop side only and a lot of people seemed to think it was a good idea, but xoom shut it down real quick unfortunately

If @XOOMshut it down that fast it simply shows CRS as a company are not interested in fixes that would work quickly.

Tell me CRS - WHY WOULD AN ALLIED PLAYER of mostly TZ3 pay $$ to get zero enjoyment, zero chance of winning, indeed feel like crap when they KNOW when they log in they are going to be overrun at every AO.

 

but nope.. CRS don't have the guts to make the hard decisions.

Share this post


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

You cant have balance or even sides in this game then no one would win fools

I disagree.

Share this post


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

You cant have balance or even sides in this game then no one would win fools

See my post above regarding local imbalance. The way to get 2:1, or 3:1, or X:1 odds in a particular attack is to attack 1 BDE with 2, 3, or X BDEs, not to just attack with 2, 3, or X times as many people spawned in.

Share this post


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

If @XOOMshut it down that fast it simply shows CRS as a company are not interested in fixes that would work quickly.

Tell me CRS - WHY WOULD AN ALLIED PLAYER of mostly TZ3 pay $$ to get zero enjoyment, zero chance of winning, indeed feel like crap when they KNOW when they log in they are going to be overrun at every AO.

 

but nope.. CRS don't have the guts to make the hard decisions.

There is always a chance of wining dropbear  same with a chance of loosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have stated many many times before on this issue. There is only 1 way to balance the pop out and that is let the system choose what side you play on. I can tell you right now that will never happen. It would totally destroy the game as you know it. 

Share this post


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

As I have stated many many times before on this issue. There is only 1 way to balance the pop out and that is let the system choose what side you play on. I can tell you right now that will never happen. It would totally destroy the game as you know it. 

There could be some options... but none would overcome the main problem.... Most people who play WWII games come into the game intending to play German. It's not just this game...it starts at from what I can guess is at least a 70-30 Axis vs Allies preference before anyone even logs in.

Then... because of this base imbalance... and the fact that most players are not willing to play on an underdog side... many of those who DO come in planning on playing Allied in TZ3 learn just how unbelievably hard it is, and either quit or go over to the Axis because they want to win. Add to that there is no way the Allies can invite new players in TZ3 to join a squad or take the time to train them... if we get 1 in 1000 players who stay... we are lucky... Meanwhile Axis players come in.. get invited to squads... usually have the freedom to play any units  and have people free to show them the ropes... get to play and not be overrun all the time... and have time to just chat and have fun... and the Axis squads recruit aggressively as well.

So, of course the Axis side continues to grow, while the Allied side shrinks... because the Z3 issue also disheartens the main Allied pop in other TZs who decide that what they do doesn't matter because it all goes away in TZ3, and we lose players from that player base as well.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to decide to join the Allied side permanently, or the Axis are going to have to start fighting themselves.

I have mentioned the only way I think that the Allies can gain any new permanent players... but we need more Allied players and a perma TZ3 Squad to do it. I would have tried to start said Squad but I couldn't find enough unaligned TZ3 Allied players to meet the minimum membership requirement to create a squad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dropbear said:

If @XOOMshut it down that fast it simply shows CRS as a company are not interested in fixes that would work quickly.

Tell me CRS - WHY WOULD AN ALLIED PLAYER of mostly TZ3 pay $$ to get zero enjoyment, zero chance of winning, indeed feel like crap when they KNOW when they log in they are going to be overrun at every AO.

 

but nope.. CRS don't have the guts to make the hard decisions.

First, the pricing is decided by playnet, not CRS. Don’t shoot at @XOOM, his vision is more in line with the general playerbase judgements than you may think. Just give him a bit more time to deliver its work. Tons of things going on behind the scenes.

Second, balance is not about total pop. The mechanism should be as efficient during low pop zones as high pop zones. Even if you made some time zones free to play it wouldn’t solve the main issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the actual numbers are?

So we're here on the forum, we know this is THE problem, but we can literally only guess what the numbers look like. Spawns, kills, etc... do they even measure population? A defense could burn through all the units as quick as they get spawned precisely because they are outnumbered. Our side could show 10X as many spawns---which means we're underpop and getting wiped out, or it might mean we have 10X as many people, which is it?

To have any chance of the players coming up with a realistic solution, we'd need to know what the numbers were much better than we do.

Share this post


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

Does anyone know what the actual numbers are?

So we're here on the forum, we know this is THE problem, but we can literally only guess what the numbers look like. Spawns, kills, etc... do they even measure population? A defense could burn through all the units as quick as they get spawned precisely because they are outnumbered. Our side could show 10X as many spawns---which means we're underpop and getting wiped out, or it might mean we have 10X as many people, which is it?

To have any chance of the players coming up with a realistic solution, we'd need to know what the numbers were much better than we do.

Last year Xoom indeed created the business data analyst position, with access to all game data (population, sorties...), in order to support discussions with a better view of actual figures.

This is a huge move towards the community and a outstanding decision that CRS1.0 never offered.

I am honoured to occupy that role for now, until I can provide my final report and let leadership conclude if it (or I) helped or not.

I have mostly been busy setting up the base for accurate data analysis. Unfortunately it takes time because data isn’t easily available and I had to first analyze which would be actually useful. This had recently been done and developers are going to provide me the data requested as soon as they got spare time. I also had to create a clear list of existing game parameters and variables.

Then I had to set priorities, and focus on points that matters or that could provide the highest ROI. That was -and remains- the most difficult part as I decided to base my conclusion on surveys and ingame polls, but results showed that we have very different population segments with contradictory expectations and complaints.

Polls need to provide clear answers, to concerns or opportunities, which requires to have well-thought questions and its list of answer options. A very good understanding of the game is required to be able to write those, hence you will see me sometimes using the forums to validate some of these.

Finally I have to link data with game design, I.e. selecting which data, or combination of data, can help provide information regarding a specific topic.

For example regarding population balance, like you said, it is not just about the number of players online or spawned, it could be visualised I terms of balance of sorties, TOM, k/d, unique players, supply, ranks,...

But then you also need to filter suggestions according to do-able action, including technical and organization constraints. And as soon as a change could be implemented, track the evolution of the data and conclude or correct. The faster capture timers for teams, as the capability for bombers to destroy vehicle spawns at FBs, are the first additions to have followed this exploratory bizdev path.

I am eager to finally get the answers to many of our questions, but I am doing it as volunteer as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.