BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

226 posts in this topic

Well, the development focus for a balance mechanic probably needs to be on weapons available before T4.

Also, the program I'm trying to outline here tries to focus on items that could be added to the game with a minimum of modeling and coding. Panzerfaust would require some code work and infantry position modeling due to its unique firing position and constraints.

Any iconic WWII weapon can be added, of course, and probably would have a beneficial effect on game interest. That however would be general game development...not the narrower goal for this post of adding balance mechanics with minimum work.

Maybe can add Volksgrenadier divisions, with an increased proportion of SMGs and other automatic weapons and were used defensively in WW2. I think it suits the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to alienate the F2P players who want a choice in what they play, and to virtually guarantee that side switchers who don't care will have even LESS reason to subscribe, then keep chewing on this bone.

Relying solely on this idea will do more harm than good in the long run.

How are you alienating F2P?

Reading comprehension.

F2P will have a choice.

If they want to choose the overpop side then they incur spawn delay and use equipment that all other F2P get to use.

If they choose the underpop side then they incur no spawn delay. As a reward or thank you for choosing the underpop side they get some bonus equipment.

Im sorry this isnt a wall of text like you're used to writing, but it's simple and straight forward. No limiting, forcing or handicapping either side.

Its been said time and time again, the problem isnt so much with sideswitchers but when a side is losing, they stop logging in.:cool:

Edited by Pittpete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the problem you're actually looking to solve? Define it' date=' clearly, in simple terms[/b']

You should know it, but im going give you mi view:

In this game, sometimes, suddenly,a side breakdown appears.

Population at one side goes suddenly down, some players start switching to the "overpop" side (to have more kills,caps or whatever), other players start logging off for a while,other players cancel subscriptions, same with HC...till there is no HC at all.

And the side collapses for a while,and the war at forums gets bloody.

Can happen at any point in the campaign.

I remmember this happened not long ago in allied side, and is happening now in axis side.

So there is the issue, what can be changed in the game to prevent this sudden side collapse?.

:)

BTW, i just unsubbed, but have also some RL issues to fix.

Edited by roner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are you alienating F2P?

Reading comprehension.

F2P will have a choice.

If they want to choose the overpop side then they incur spawn delay and use equipment that all other F2P get to use.

If they choose the underpop side then they incur no spawn delay. As a reward or thank you for choosing the underpop side they get some bonus equipment.

Im sorry this isnt a wall of text like you're used to writing, but it's simple and straight forward. No limiting, forcing or handicapping either side.

Its been said time and time again, the problem isnt so much with sideswitchers but when a side is losing, they stop logging in.:cool:

Alright now neighbor...the reading comprehension comment was out of line. Here's a scathingly novel thought...I won't insult your intelligence if you don't insult mine.

Next, try reading my entire "wall of text" before you tell me what I am referring to; because the method that YOU are mentioning in your post is NOT what I was referring to. I explained exactly what I was referring to in a previous post on this thread.

The idea of using the F2P players has been presented TWO ways...

There is the one you are espousing, where F2P players are given a choice: If they choose to play on the underpopped side, they get incentives, which will, I strongly believe, lessen any chance that they might subscribe. If they choose to play the overpopped side, they experience a time delay side lock, but they can still play the side they prefer.

Then there is the method that I was actually referring to: The one where F2P players have one option available to them when there is pop imbalance: Log in on the underpopped side or stay locked out of the game entirely until it is balanced. Yes, if you DO decide to log in on the underpopped side you will get extra toys, but it's that or don't play at all. THIS option is the one that will alienate players who refuse to play both sides. This method is also unlikely to garner many new subscribers....Unless they were already planning to subscribe, F2P players who won't play both sides are going to feel alienated, and if they get locked out too much are likely to find another game. The ones who don't mind being forced to choose the underpopped side will be happy with the new toys that they don't have to pay for.

Neither of these options on it's own, will solve the imbalance issue. Consider that we are currently using a time delay side lock for everybody and it still has not proved to be the permanent solution... If you reduce the number of players to just the F2P players, the effect will be even less than it is now.

We need an option that will actually work. We have expected players to try to fix it for years and that has not happened.

We have TWO options...and THEY are simple as well. Either we accept that the imbalance is here to stay and that there is nothing that we can effectively do about it, OR we ask CRS to come up with a plan that somehow helps enforce side balance. The drawback to that is that they will quite likely have to make things worse for the overpopped side and/ or better for the underpopped side and do it in a way that affects all of us.

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of forcing FTP onto a particular side. The reasons should be obvious.

There are plenty of variables in this game already which, if done well, could be used to negate the advantage of the over-pop side, without forcing them to stare at timers(as much).

A combination of:

Quicker capture.

Closer and/or tougher MSPs.

Tougher FBs.

More AOs.

More depot supply.

Less delay for bunker capture.

Quicker flag moves.

etc

Would give the under-pop side a much better chance of succeeding on attacks than they currently do. This game is at it's best when both sides are attacking with belief.

I'm pleased this is finally working it's way to the top of the priorities list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quin a player quoted what i wrote.

You quoted and responded.

Your walls of text don't help.

Keep it simple.

Edited by Pittpete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quin a player quoted what i wrote.

You quoted and responded.

Your walls of text don't help.

Keep it simple.

I responded to your post, not to someone quoting you.

I try to keep it as simple as I can, but if it takes me 1000 words to clearly say what I have to say, then I will use them all.

We may live in an abbreviated world where people have gotten used to short texts and abbreviated conversations... I'm not going to be a part of that.

But we digress from asking folks for more NEW ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The best idea I have seen comes from Saronin. That is: only allow Free To Play players to spawn the low pop side. That is a direct solution to the numbers problem."

-dunny

I agree ... shift F2P to under-pop side until balance met. If F2P desire$ choice, then they have to pay for it.

I thought F2P was great idea when Bilton propagated it back in early 2000 (~2003 or so) and just thought they should have RIFLE and ability to CAP a flag -- that's it! Lol They are already getting wayyy too much for free, IMO.

- just my dirty little ho

;-)

Edited by vonguff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your walls of text Quincannon. But hey, look who you are talking too. I think sound bites are a poor way to flesh out an idea. Some folks can be pretty concise and get the majority of their idea(s) across. Besides that just Pittpete's opinion and evidently for him, walls of text are just not helpful. I'm sure there are others that feel that way. No one is obligated to read a wall of text though, so if someone really feels that way they can skip them. I'm sure others appreciate them.

I do think we need to move off of the FTP idea. Too much potential to drive potential customers away from my perspective. No one has to do that just my opinion.

My opinion. Aside from the 30 sec SD that we have now, we are better off living with population imbalances and doing very little to alleviate this with forced rules. Not a deal breaker for me and I think an increase in overall population helps mask the issue. I think that is perfectly fine.

The only thing I can see is increasing and decreasing the capture timers some to help a side that is underpopulated. But you have to be careful that they do not create a condition that could be gamed easily and very effectively.

Silky I think kind of states it for me. What is the problem exactly?

How far should we go to negate a fundamental precept of warfare? Greater numbers breeds much greater chances for success.

Is the problem being defined as: the chances for success or failure should never rely on imbalances of players on either side. Either side should have an equal chance of success regardless of population disparities.

Or is it: We wish to slightly increase the chances of an underpopulated side to deny victory or captures to the overpopulated side and allow a slim margin of capturing as well.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like your walls of text Quincannon. But hey, look who you are talking too. I think sound bites are a poor way to flesh out an idea. Some folks can be pretty concise and get the majority of their idea(s) across. Besides that just Pittpete's opinion and evidently for him, walls of text are just not helpful. I'm sure there are others that feel that way. No one is obligated to read a wall of text though, so if someone really feels that way they can skip them. I'm sure others appreciate them.

I do think we need to move off of the FTP idea. Too much potential to drive potential customers away from my perspective. No one has to do that just my opinion.

My opinion. Aside from the 30 sec SD that we have now, we are better off living with population imbalances and doing very little to alleviate this with forced rules. Not a deal breaker for me and I think an increase in overall population helps mask the issue. I think that is perfectly fine.

The only thing I can see is increasing and decreasing the capture timers some to help a side that is underpopulated. But you have to be careful that they do not create a condition that could be gamed easily and very effectively.

Silky I think kind of states it for me. What is the problem exactly?

How far should we go to negate a fundamental precept of warfare? Greater numbers breeds much greater chances for success.

Is the problem being defined as: the chances for success or failure should never rely on imbalances of players on either side. Either side should have an equal chance of success regardless of population disparities.

Or is it: We wish to slightly increase the chances of an underpopulated side to deny victory or captures to the overpopulated side and allow a slim margin of capturing as well.

Answering in PM because I think the thread is moving into discussion territory, and away from suggestion territory.

Edited by Quincannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand, F2P players can capture. How about to disable capturing for F2P on overpop side? I have no idea what part of populations is made by F2P but maybe it might have some effect to help underpop side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the population numbers visible on the Persona screen. After actually seeing the pop difference (especially in severe cases) I think a lot of Lone Wolves would take it upon themselves to balance things out.

There is no reason I can think of to keep this information unavailable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't know what issue you're trying to resolve.

Take a look at all structured problem solving and you'll see Define as the first step. You can't look at tackling an issue you can't describe

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another suggestion that I had considered some time ago.

First, change the Cap timers so that they are NOT based on the number of people in a CP or bunker.

Set the the capture timer to 3 minutes for everyone.

IF there is a population imbalance, the overpopped side requires a minimum of 3 people in a CP or bunker to cap it. Once the timer is started, however, it does not reset if even one capper is still in the building)

Capture timers don't start and are stopped if players from both sides are in a CP. Disable the feature that allows a side with more cappers in a CP to capture it without the need to clear the CP of enemies. ALL enemies must be cleared from the CP before timers can start or resume. (I have been in a CP a bunch of times and had the enemy come into the lower floor and not come up to kill me and still capped the CP)

This idea could greatly help offset overpopulation by requiring more of them to capture a building, and by not allowing greater numbers to increase capture times. Ninja capping would be much harder to pull off, as a lone capper from the overpopped side would not be able to cap anything., while the underpopped side could still cap with only one person. It would help stop rolls, as the time to capture a town would increase.

This idea could be adjusted a bit... maybe 2 minutes for CP timers and a minimum of 2 cappers needed from the overpopped side to capture anything.

Just a thought that doesn't affect supply or prevent anyone from playing a particular side.

Edited by Quincannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still don't know what issue you're trying to resolve.

Take a look at all structured problem solving and you'll see Define as the first step. You can't look at tackling an issue you can't describe

Don't be coy Silky. Define it for us. I took a stab at it. I gave two possible definitions.

a) Problem: Imbalances in side populations greatly increase the overpopulated sides chances of victory or town capture.

Goal: Produce rules and mechanics where imbalances in side population have little or no effect on capture or victory conditions.

B) Problem: Imbalances in side populations affect capture or victory conditions too greatly.

Goal: Produce rules and mechanic that curtail the overpopulated sides advantages for victory or capture conditions but do not eliminate those advantages completely.

I'll even add a third.

c) Problem: There is none. A sides ability to overpopulate should result in much greater chances for captures or victory.

Goal: Convince the population that population imbalances creating greater victory or capture conditions are part of the games mechanics and that there really is no problem.

Lastly, you could step back even further and state:

The problem is identifying issues that aggravate the player base. The goal being to eliminate issues that aggravate the player base.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define the goal of balance, and then define how players are to win within that balancing mechanism.

You can design a game that can never be won, and that would be just as frustrating if not moreso then games that have equipment/gameplay/numbers imbalances.

The perfectly balanced game must fly like an F-16- fly smoothly, by electronically moderated flight control, but be inherently unstable and prepared to depart from controlled flight in order to have the violent maneuvering and meaningful actions people are here to experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Convince the population that population imbalances creating greater victory or capture conditions are part of the games mechanics and that there really is no problem.

LOL :)

And then the underpop side would leave because they don't play to be a target dummy, and the overpop side would leave because there was no one to shoot at, and CRS would be out of business. But, there'd be no problem. :)

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like rwkeen's idea of having the choice of fixing your side at the begining of campaign. If you don't, when pop is unbalanced, you automatically play the lower pop side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Convince the population that population imbalances creating greater victory or capture conditions are part of the games mechanics and that there really is no problem.

LOL :)

And then the underpop side would leave because they don't play to be a target dummy, and the overpop side would leave because there was no one to shoot at, and CRS would be out of business. But, there'd be no problem. :)

Well the quote you reference is out of context. It is the goal segment of a four part attempt to define what the issue is for this thread as Silky challenged us to come up with. Here is the whole quote in context:

Don't be coy Silky. Define it for us. I took a stab at it. I gave two possible definitions.

a) Problem: Imbalances in side populations greatly increase the overpopulated sides chances of victory or town capture.

Goal: Produce rules and mechanics where imbalances in side population have little or no effect on capture or victory conditions.

B) Problem: Imbalances in side populations affect capture or victory conditions too greatly.

Goal: Produce rules and mechanic that curtail the overpopulated sides advantages for victory or capture conditions but do not eliminate those advantages completely.

I'll even add a third.

c) Problem: There is none. A sides ability to overpopulate should result in much greater chances for captures or victory.

Goal: Convince the population that population imbalances creating greater victory or capture conditions are part of the games mechanics and that there really is no problem.

Lastly, you could step back even further and state:

The problem is identifying issues that aggravate the player base. The goal being to eliminate issues that aggravate the player base.

I highlighted the segment you pulled.

Personally, I'm a very patient player and one that actually enjoys logical restrictions for good game play. You could have complete campaign side lock, although that does not really address the side population imbalance. We are not talking about equipment imbalances but imbalances in populations of each side at any time during the campaign. You could lock the arena at a certain level, I'd still play. You could even have squad or fielding of equipment locks, not sure what to call it really. But I would wait in a que before spawning until a fire team is filled or an armored team or an ATG squad set by either the mission leader or HC if that would help better teamwork and make the game play more realistically. I however am in a very small minority of players that would go along with any of these changes.

Once I consider the business model and the current player base and all of the other factors to be considered I am very leery of making too many changes to enforce too much population neutrality as I have seen it termed. I get the argument. Let's do it and see what happens. My guess would be that right now would be poor timing or a bad climate for too much more change. Maybe after some time gradually we could work towards population neutrality.

Although you could argue that the past business model and say that not enough has been done or that it has not been done in the right way there is a segment of the player base that believes that imbalances in side population are just part of the game and would not like to see additional side lock delays, spawn delays or additional spawning ques to create population neutrality. Some of the player base believes there is no problem it is just part of the natural order of things. This being the case it is an option for CRS to agree with and maintain that belief through marketing the problem as no problem at all and letting the player base work these issues out. I don't really advocate such a position.

Because of this thread started by CRS that kind of suggestion is tongue in cheek as they say. Because the thread implies that CRS sees side population imbalances as an issue that they would like to address. At least I think it does.

I believe the title of and the OP of the thread require some redressing as they can be perceived as ambiguous and do not really define the issue to be resolved. I think that is what Silky is alluding too.

My take is that the thread and the OP are asking for ideas that address issues with imbalances in side population. When one side has say 50 players online the other has 10 or even 100 on one side and 20 on the other. From what I understand these conditions appear rarely in the overall scheme of things, at least I've seen that opinion expressed somewhere. If that truly is the case then perhaps we really have no issue at all. I suspect however that these conditions in today's game occur often enough that they are perceived as a real issue in the game.

I'm not sure you can achieve close to true population neutrality without locking the arena during imbalances or forcing players as they log in to play in the underpopulated side. We don't get to choose our side the system does. I think either of these are tough propositions in today's environment and in the current state of the game.

The alternative that I like but I am skeptical from a gaming the system standpoint would be to have capture timers locally adjusted do too local side imbalances which would need to be checked and adjusted often.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try to keep this short, feel free to ask for clarification, or offer your own :)

This might be a combined-parts solution:

Ingredients:

1) Adjust the cap-timers (slightly/some/lots) with the imbalanace.

2) Adjust how many "units" gets pulled out of supply when spawning in, also related to side balance.

IE, When Side X is overpop, maybe that SMG you spawned in is worth 2 from X's supply. If it gets more imbalanced, maybe it worth 3 (maybe underpop side players could even get kill credit points in accordance with being underpop.

Discuss....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to keep this short, feel free to ask for clarification, or offer your own :)

This might be a combined-parts solution:

Ingredients:

1) Adjust the cap-timers (slightly/some/lots) with the imbalanace.

2) Adjust how many "units" gets pulled out of supply when spawning in, also related to side balance.

IE, When Side X is overpop, maybe that SMG you spawned in is worth 2 from X's supply. If it gets more imbalanced, maybe it worth 3 (maybe underpop side players could even get kill credit points in accordance with being underpop.

Discuss....

Hello ASPIRIN,

I like the concepts and ideas and I do not envy you the task. The only issue I see here is the possibility of elite players gaming the system by playing underpopulated on purpose and either capturing facilities easier or depleting supply. I think #1 could be carefully done with minor adjustments to make it more balanced for the underpopulated side, but I do not think you can reduce/increase capture timers so that it is entirely balanced for the underpopulated side.

#2 is of even greater concern as a small group of elite K/D ratio players could deliberately take advantage of these types of conditions. I would in no way give extra kill credits as that would only encourage the behavior I am describing.

Could you clarify how such mechanics would be monitored to prevent or discourage players from gaming such systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to keep this short, feel free to ask for clarification, or offer your own :)

This might be a combined-parts solution:

Ingredients:

1) Adjust the cap-timers (slightly/some/lots) with the imbalanace.

2) Adjust how many "units" gets pulled out of supply when spawning in, also related to side balance.

IE, When Side X is overpop, maybe that SMG you spawned in is worth 2 from X's supply. If it gets more imbalanced, maybe it worth 3 (maybe underpop side players could even get kill credit points in accordance with being underpop.

Discuss....

I have an extensive pop neutrality thread, would you want the link here to that or for me to reproduce it here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to keep this short, feel free to ask for clarification, or offer your own :)

This might be a combined-parts solution:

Ingredients:

1) Adjust the cap-timers (slightly/some/lots) with the imbalanace.

2) Adjust how many "units" gets pulled out of supply when spawning in, also related to side balance.

IE, When Side X is overpop, maybe that SMG you spawned in is worth 2 from X's supply. If it gets more imbalanced, maybe it worth 3 (maybe underpop side players could even get kill credit points in accordance with being underpop.

Discuss....

StoneComet has delved much deeper into this point than I have, but it seems to me you're suggesting solutions before you've defined the problem.

What is the issue here?

That the side with more players wins? I'd suggest that yes, the side which fields more players should probably win in a game without buffs, without hit points etc

CRS needs to clarify the problematic areas of population as they see it, as opposed to how we the players see it. The discussion starts with a clear description of the unpalatable aspects of pop swing.

Edited by Silky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s!

with overpop situation, there are two problems.

1. The main overpop situation itself

2. the effect of one side been highly overpop.

1. If what we want is the overpop situation to be avoided then try some of the things previously mentioned in this forum.

2. About the effect of overpop. (fast moving maps, defender's feeling of playing always pre-camped and I'm just a dummie, etc)

Don't think that adjusting the cap timers would really help. I mean, when you are heavily underpop and the town you are defending is mostly camped, then you won't be able to defend yourself. That depot or AB will fall down, in 5 mins instead of 3 mins? who cares.....

If you want to solve the rolling effect when a side is highly overpop, then:

2.A. just limit the number of Aos.

Ex. At the very moment that one side has, lets say, double amount of players --> only one Ao available. This way.

- The rolling situation is over. You'll be losing one town maximun at the time -> the lack of Hcs is then not so relevant.

- Defenders will have the a chance of winning by concentrating forces and depleting the enemy pool.

- if the underpop side has enough defenders at the Def Ao, they may spare some into trying to cap something themselves at their own AO.

2.B increase time between different Aos (changing Aos) of the overpop side

Biggest problem when you are underpop is that you can not check all fbs, keep fbs in favour, attend to every EWs, etc, so when you jump into a new Ao, this Ao is mostly precamped.

But If there is only one AO and you are able to defend it, then, if the overpop side wants to change to another target, if they need to wait, lets say 15 mins, it won't be so easy for them, as the old Ao is cancelled, the defenders will have time enough to check map, decide which towns are tactical targets so you may start checking them or working in their Fbs and you may have time to start working on towns with active EWS.

the attackers, meanwhile, as they wait for the AO, they may play as defenders or just play following orders (blow that fb, send Frus there, etc)

sorry if my English makes the idea harder to understand.

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an extensive pop neutrality thread' date=' would you want the link here to that or for me to reproduce it here?[/quote']

Answer please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.