• 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.
BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

288 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, dropbear said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, Quincannon said:

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.

 

160 TZ3: Axis overpop

161 TZ3: Balanced 

162 TZ3: Axis overpop

163 TZ3: Balanced

164 TZ3: Allied overpop

165 TZ3: Allied overpop

166 TZ3: Allied overpop

167 TZ3: Axis overpop

168 TZ3: Axis overpop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sydspain said:

 

 

160 TZ3: Axis overpop

161 TZ3: Balanced 

162 TZ3: Axis overpop

163 TZ3: Balanced

164 TZ3: Allied overpop

165 TZ3: Allied overpop

166 TZ3: Allied overpop

167 TZ3: Axis overpop

168 TZ3: Axis overpop

I don't know where  you came up with that list... but before you use it for proof that the imbalance doesn't exist, I suggest you look at every time it showed Allied overpop and see if there weren't a significant of people who normally play Axis swapping to the Allied side. You can't use a swapover campaign as proof that the Alllies were overpop. It's a false positive. I personally have been of the belief that there needs to be a moratorium on Axis players coming to the Allied side for at least 6-7 campaigns, so that everyone can clearly see how a purely Allied side performs. Regular side swappers are generally an insignificant percentage, but I would assume that they can affect the  numbers by 10-15%.  It's unfortunate that it's unlikely to happen, when it is so clearly needed to make the issue unquestionable to everyone.

The imbalance is not a joke or conspiracy. It's a fact that has been recognized by folks on both sides. From what i have seen, with a VERY few exceptions, any time the Allies get the better pop is when Axis folks want to "help" or decide that the Allies need to win for the sake of the game.

There have been a few times when the Allies were able to make substantial sacrifices of time that they normally cannot dedicate to the game to help out in TZ3... but it has never been sustainable. People have real lives.  The Allies have to gain real dedicated Allied players who can play during TZ3 on a regular basis, or nothing will be solved.... ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

I don't know where  you came up with that list... but before you use it for proof that the imbalance doesn't exist, 

I'm not saying that there isn't inbalance on tz3...I'm saying that the inbalance affects both sides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sydspain said:

I'm not saying that there isn't inbalance on tz3...I'm saying that the inbalance affects both sides

It only affects the Axis side when Axis players swap sides.


I have been playing TZ3 Allied for 7 years. I have missed out on a few campaigns. but in that time I have never played in a campaign where TZ3 Allied was anywhere near equal to the Axis overpop unless Axis groups swapped sides. THAT's what your list is missing... it doesn't take that into account; therefore it is a flawed population model.

Show me more than two or three campaigns that the Allies won purely on their own in the past few years... Then maybe you can convince me that I might be wrong.

Share this post


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

The only way to fix balance is to increase population...

That is not necessarily true.
If there is a population imbalance,,, say 60% Axis / 10% swappers/ 30% Allied

The we increase the overall population across the board by 20 %... All ratios remaining equal...

The imbalance will always remain at the same percentage...

The reason some folks think that the imbalance is helped by greater population is because the numbers increase, and the imbalance is not so glaringly obvious..

If we have   60 Axis, 10 swappers, and 30 Allied...  the pop is 2-1, but there are 30 Allies... not necessarily that bad.

if we have 30 Axis, 5 swappers and 15 Allied... the pop is still 2-1, and 15 Allies can still potentially hold out/

But when we drop to 6 Axis, 1 swapper and 3 Allies... things get pretty grim for the Allies...

Unfortunately, it's rarely that specifically even.. when the numbers drop, the ratio tends to get greater in my experience... often putting the axis at  a 3-1 advantage or better during TZ3. This is often because there are TZ3 Squads on the Axis side, and none on the Allied side.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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,...

Yeah, it kind of is the bolded thing, above.

That's the data I'm talking about.

Time averaged actual in game population as a graph, at least hourly. So we could see for some example (typical) campaign that there are 13 Allies in  game, and 21 Axis in one hour, then 17 and 28, etc.

The actual numbers matter. One, to understand the typical magnitudes of imbalance that exists (assuming there is in fact a pattern). Two, the actual number matter because as wel all know, effective CP defense requires some minimum number of players (note here that "CP defense" is something required for both offensive and defensive play, you guard what you own or you lose it, regardless of how you obtained ownership).

If the pop is so low that one side cannot meet the minimum CP defense for 2 towns, then even one AO per side is too many, since they cannot defend one town, and attack another.

It's a non-trivial problem, or this would have been fixed years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, 2 ideas for helping balance, not sure if mentioned before.

First, TOM % side SD;   This would mean a side with TOM advantage would have permanent SD regardless of op or up.

So, if your side has 10% TOM advantage, you would have 10 sec SD at all times - regardless of pop level.  Because, your side has overall TOM advantage.

 

Second, side behind, no SD.

This is different variation, not sure how would calculate -but prolly from overall map % ownership.

I think map starts allies 55 axis 45.

As long as that ratio maintained, both sides get SD like normal.

But, if one side pulls ahead, say it is now axis 50, allies 50; the 'behind side' would never get hit with SD.

The ahead side would have normal SD, if under pop none, but if over pop they would get SD.

The behind side would never get SD, even if over pop.

 

Ultimately, this needs to be solved with a spawn in queue, that allows no more than a 2 to 1 in game pop advantage; or maybe 3 to 2.

It doesn't need to enforce even sides, just enforce some limit to over pop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every other thread becomes a balance thread, lol.

Something occurred to me as a generally useful concept, but it can also be perhaps turned on and off, or otherwise controlled relative to player population, perhaps mitigating balance issues, so I will put it here.

Vehicles are "multicrew," but functionally what this means is that vehicles get multiple lives per spawn, unlike infantry. Spawning a fire team or squad is not very likely, so forget that. What about allowing multiple, simultaneous spawns for a single inf player (infantry, and ATGs/AAA guns)?

Spawn truck in a town likely to be attacked. Make DFMS on an excellent hill for defense. Add some ammo as well, away from the DFMS. Despawn, and respawn as an ATG. Find a good spot, hidden, nearby. That's all normal, here's the new bit: Allow inf players to despawn in a way that does nto remove them from the game world. Maybe it's a "swap avatar" button along with the usual 2 buttons to despawn or cancel. That pops you back out to active missions. Your ATG is right where you left it, as if you were AFK. You'd then maybe head someplace in desperate need of troops, and fight a bit. You'd have a key to swap between units---say 2, 3, 4, etc, as if you were playing a tank where "1" is the inf you are playing right now. If you are an ATG/AAA, it's simply the next number after the crew on the ATG (so 3, 4, etc). You then hot swap between 2 guys (or 3, 4, whatever). When you are not controlling them, they are simply targets, and you might get a message like ATG when a crew member is killed (Crew 2 hit in torso).

This would allow people to set up proactive defenses, but be able to still defend in town. It could be pegged to OP/UP status in some fashion, the more under pop you are, the more of these concurrent avatars you can spawn. While only 1 can fight at a time, it's still a force multiplier. Since the enemy knows there might be units emplaced out around town, they at least might want to guard their FMS, etc, which at least siphons off some of their overpop numbers. The UP side on attack could spawn an inf, advance to a cutting position, then spawn someone to cap. Place the cap guy in the CP, then switch to the cutter. All but the one he controls are sitting ducks, obviously, but it is a force multiplier. You can guard with 1, then go recap, for example (you'll get a message when your guard is killed).

I honestly think this would be better generally in play, but the numbers allowed could easily scale to relative pop, allowing a kind of balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what solution if any is ever enacted. A segment of the population will be upset and maybe unsubscribe. I didn't like the AO system, but I came back and played for years.

S!

Edited by gavalink
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 5:20 PM, delems said:

Ok, 2 ideas for helping balance, not sure if mentioned before.

First, TOM % side SD;   This would mean a side with TOM advantage would have permanent SD regardless of op or up.

So, if your side has 10% TOM advantage, you would have 10 sec SD at all times - regardless of pop level.  Because, your side has overall TOM advantage.

 

Second, side behind, no SD.

This is different variation, not sure how would calculate -but prolly from overall map % ownership.

I think map starts allies 55 axis 45.

As long as that ratio maintained, both sides get SD like normal.

But, if one side pulls ahead, say it is now axis 50, allies 50; the 'behind side' would never get hit with SD.

The ahead side would have normal SD, if under pop none, but if over pop they would get SD.

The behind side would never get SD, even if over pop.

 

Ultimately, this needs to be solved with a spawn in queue, that allows no more than a 2 to 1 in game pop advantage; or maybe 3 to 2.

It doesn't need to enforce even sides, just enforce some limit to over pop.

 

RLMAO Delmse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.