• 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

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.

Your English is excellent, Piska, and I for one think this is the way to go, or at least a component of it. It has the advantage of concentrating defensive forces, so you get intense firefights and attackers have to work their asses off, not roll easily along.

They will have a manpower advantage anyway, which means more support, tanks, planes, guns, etc, versus the defending force.

When underpop, you just don't have the manpower to defend three AOs, FBs, etc, so you try and do it all anyway, and usually fail. Its also an extreme hit to morale, as everyone sees their own little part of the map failing, and starts screaming for help...never understanding that elsewhere, its just as desperate, if not more so.

This way, the fighting is concentrated, and intense, and everyone can give their best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AO limits are a good way to go.

No underpop side can defend without defenders, and I've personally seen players complain that a town was "too easy" to take.

I've been on both sides and it's easy to see that defending against three AOs is just lame. Not to mention, if players are getting camped by a tank zerg, they just plain WON'T spawn in that town. I know I won't. Who the hell would want to pad someone's tanking stats?!?!?

*cough* Canukplf *cough*

Seriously though... There is nothing wrong with channeling players to less DOs. It's more intense fighting and much more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An idea -

I'm not sure if this is directly related to the balance issue, but I think it might help with player distribution. What if availability of equipment is divided by size of attack/objective. What I'm thinking is that back in the real deal, tigers and higher tier equipment was allocated to strategic importance. Smaller towns and objective have smaller tier equipment to deal with a smaller opposition. So imagine attacking Antwerp with all tiers but attacking a small town with only tier 1 2 and 3 . I think, by limiting the attacks to different levels in a way, will balance the opposing forces and give a chance to the not so skilled players to fight on level ground with each other. On the other hand, if a higher level player wants to fight using a higher tier tank, he will almost naturally be put against the same level. How does this translate to balance? No one wants to keep losing so they join the winners. Winners have certain advantages such as equipment and numbers. Dealing with the equipment side of things this way, might encourage players to be more on both sides as equipment is not that much of a factor for certain battles. Also, if lets say 10 high level players want to battle in high tier tanks but there isn't a major battle that has 10 axis high rank players to make the fight fun, then some might want to switch just to have a higher tier battle. I don't think it will ruin the gameplay that much and perhaps high tier equipment can be strategically moved around as well.

how does that sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An idea -

I'm not sure if this is directly related to the balance issue, but I think it might help with player distribution. What if availability of equipment is divided by size of attack/objective. What I'm thinking is that back in the real deal, tigers and higher tier equipment was allocated to strategic importance. Smaller towns and objective have smaller tier equipment to deal with a smaller opposition. So imagine attacking Antwerp with all tiers but attacking a small town with only tier 1 2 and 3 . I think, by limiting the attacks to different levels in a way, will balance the opposing forces and give a chance to the not so skilled players to fight on level ground with each other. On the other hand, if a higher level player wants to fight using a higher tier tank, he will almost naturally be put against the same level. How does this translate to balance? No one wants to keep losing so they join the winners. Winners have certain advantages such as equipment and numbers. Dealing with the equipment side of things this way, might encourage players to be more on both sides as equipment is not that much of a factor for certain battles. Also, if lets say 10 high level players want to battle in high tier tanks but there isn't a major battle that has 10 axis high rank players to make the fight fun, then some might want to switch just to have a higher tier battle. I don't think it will ruin the gameplay that much and perhaps high tier equipment can be strategically moved around as well.

how does that sound?

A few issues that may come up with these ideas:

The whole idea of tiers is to sequentially imitate the introduction of timeline based equipment as the war progresses. This model you present negates that in that I think you are saying make all tiers available throughout the war just allocate them and restrict them into certain areas.

Also, many top tier players are side specific players so the likelihood that they would enjoy the prospect of having to switch sides and fight each other just to use a high tier piece of equipment is minimal.

Lastly, this thread sometime gets confused with balancing equipment when it is actually about balancing population levels with a focus on ways to correct large side population imbalances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Rats, you want my commentary here in the open relatively, or behind closed doors?

Are you even watching this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Rats, you want my commentary here in the open relatively, or behind closed doors?

Are you even watching this thread?

Let's be frank, we know the answer here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-If F2P players choose the underpop side when logging in, reward them with better equipment.

Not only does it help to balance the sides, but it gives them a feel for the higher tiered stuff which may lead to more subs.

I guess, this would help, at least a little bit.

Also i would suggest to differentiate the Starter accounts by branches - for people who prefer to play as infantry - Infantry Starter account, who prefer armor - Armor Starter account etc. Logically, that don't mean, that they can to play with whole equipment from choosed branch. But some differentiation would be good, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need scaling mechanics based on current pop.

1) the game lacks an economy of any kind so rewarding underpop with more X can't be done.

-meaning i go on a mission as a fighter plane and I kill a fighter and a bomber. in a 1:1 scenario this gives me 10 points to keep it simple. if my side is overpop, maybe I get only 5 points and maybe i get 15 points if my side is under pop. these points then translate into my ability to 'purchase' things (see point 2) and or reserve gear.

-need at least two levels to this economy IMO. The global economy where everyone's success adds to the collective, then the personal economy where your success translates into rewards for you (and or your squad). both the global and personal economy scales off the current population.

2) scaling support AI systems. non offensive of course. things like trucks that drive guns into place for you and allow you to spawn into these 'prepped' resources. underpop side gets more support.

- the AI support systems could/should tie into the economy model. it costs X to 'order' a truck/gun and have it placed 'over there'.

i realize neither suggestion can be done anytime soon but IMO the best way to manage this is to scale the carrot/stick in real time. if you insist on playing for the over pop side, fine! the back end math guarantees - to some extent - that the underpop side is always in the fight until such time that the imbalance is so overwhelming even the math falls down. if that occurs though IMO the problem is elsewhere (likely a real/perceived gear imbalance/fotm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem: the weapon sets are tuned to be nearly equally effective as measured by CRS's comprehensive kill/death stats, and the two sides are generally about equal in motivation and effectiveness. Therefore when population is significantly unequal (>20% at medium pop, >10% at low pop?), the underpop side is unable to both defend everywhere they're attacked and also conduct at least one attack of their own. This is a problem because of the underlying customer psychology. There are several types of players. One key type plays for the "thrill of victory"...tactical one-on-one, and/or campaign-strategic. Some players on an underpop side don't "get their fix" and conclude that things won't change near-term, so they log off, or possibly switch sides, or even unsub.

CRS's Understanding of the Goal: keep the population at close to equal as possible on the two sides.

Real Goal: adjust the game so that both sides equally "get their fix".

Analysis: Population is only the problem if its conditionalities are constant...but one of those conditionalities is entirely under CRS's control, and is adjustable at any time, and can be adjusted very precisely.

CRS could set up five operational performance parameter sets, and start each campaign with set C. If an hour later population has shifted slightly to favor side X, automatically switch to operational parameter set D, which slightly benefits side Y. If the population swings the other way, automatically shift to parameter set B.

Let players play whichever side they want. Stop worrying about population. Use the existing tools to fix "balance".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a little bit since I poked my head in here, I think now with 1.36's plan being discussed we should get some more serious recommendations (not debates) put in here. I've seen a couple good ones, my two favorite so far are:

1) Faster capture timers for the underpopulated side.

2) AO availability / limitations.

We need some more ideas to choose from that are concise (keep it simple) and aren't too crazy in terms of creating something entirely new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timers need to go both ways. UP for the overpop side. DOWN for the underpop side. It'll need to be a significant difference in cap time to have any real effect.

Change the resupply timer. With a warning on the despawn screen.

IF overpop rescue/MIA = kill.

If Underpop rescue/MIA = RTB.

Add some infantry classes only available if your side is underpop. Or allow 'hero' weapons to all players on an underpop side.

Weapons like the STG43 would be perfect. As would m1919 stinger. Rare weapons with balance problems. If they're going to be unbalancing... put them where they will do some good.

'Off map' artillery strikes, caliber dependent on side balance. Available to underpop players. No new models needed. No STO's. It just drops a short barrage on location set by the player and uses his rendering of targets.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't read all the wall of text here so sorry if I repeat stuff already said, I'll keep it short.

-Lower capping/recapping timers for the underpop side

-AO population threshold must take in consideration population level on both sides. That 2nd/3rd AO often just fcks the underpop'd side very badly because its all about TOTAL population if I remember correctly.

-We need to become more used to GM/Rats making obvious moves to stop stuff like abusive cut offs when a side is lacking HCs. I know rats don't want to do too much of it because they don't want to give the perception that they're helping a side.

3 main things I've been thinking about recently.

These are points I agree with. CP cap timers could be adjusted slightly to favour the underpop and penalise the overpop. I'm talking upto 20% maybe. It should also be obvious in the UI, that when you are capturing and you are underpop/overpop it shows that you have a slight bonus/penalty. Instead of "magic" happening in the background and people saying "hmm, it feels like this CP is taking longer to cap than usual".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timers need to go both ways. UP for the overpop side. DOWN for the underpop side. It'll need to be a significant difference in cap time to have any real effect.

Change the resupply timer. With a warning on the despawn screen.

IF overpop rescue/MIA = kill.

If Underpop rescue/MIA = RTB.

hmm - mostly like.

Add some infantry classes only available if your side is underpop. Or allow 'hero' weapons to all players on an underpop side.

Weapons like the STG43 would be perfect. As would m1919 stinger. Rare weapons with balance problems. If they're going to be unbalancing... put them where they will do some good.

valid points and do like. at what imbalance point though? 1.5:1? 2:1? 1.1:1?

'Off map' artillery strikes, caliber dependent on side balance. Available to underpop players. No new models needed. No STO's. It just drops a short barrage on location set by the player and uses his rendering of targets.

really like for a variety of reasons - mainly cause if they ever do real artillery as they've done mortars some people would destroy souls and the rest of us would be completely useless - just like mortars ;-).

you could add this feature to both sides and then increase/decrease the cooldown based on population. also might be a nice thing to give to HC in the post TOE world.

*edit*

also, brits had slow infantry tanks, however they had argueably the finest artillery and doctrine in the war. a mechanic like this might really help them.

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Nm. You guys did the right thing by lowering the semi-auto numbers in T1.

S!

Edited by capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm - mostly like.

valid points and do like. at what imbalance point though? 1.5:1? 2:1? 1.1:1?

Dunno. I think CRS would need to do some serious thinking about what level of imbalance is untenable and is seen often enough to warrant. Given that historically we've seen situations as bad as 4:1, then I'd be cutting it in much earlier to try to stop it getting worse. 1.5: 1 maybe?

really like for a variety of reasons - mainly cause if they ever do real artillery as they've done mortars some people would destroy souls and the rest of us would be completely useless - just like mortars ;-).

you could add this feature to both sides and then increase/decrease the cooldown based on population. also might be a nice thing to give to HC in the post TOE world.

*edit*

also, brits had slow infantry tanks, however they had argueably the finest artillery and doctrine in the war. a mechanic like this might really help them.

Maybe add a FAO class of infantry. Just a rifleman with ability to call in arty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weapons like the STG43 would be perfect. As would m1919 stinger. Rare weapons with balance problems. If they're going to be unbalancing... put them where they will do some good.

Yes!

Details--StG44, not 43. The ancestor MP43 guns looked different and worked much less well. And, the LMG should be the M1919A6--the "Stinger" was a Pacific-campaign field mod that put a rifle butt and a BAR bipod on a salvaged AN/M2 aircraft MG, to make a short-burst, loose-belt-fed weapon. Very different gun, different performance.

'Off map' artillery strikes, caliber dependent on side balance. Available to underpop players. No new models needed. No STO's. It just drops a short barrage on location set by the player and uses his rendering of targets.

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynamic capture times.

The overpop needs instead of 2 mins to cap a cp should take 4 or 5 min depending the % of overpop. Similar the low pop side instead of taking 2 mins to recap reduse to 30 secs depending the % of the overpop. Similar when the ab comes hot can increase or decrease.

Also the bonus of having many peopole capping decrease cap time should disable after lets say 5% overpop.

Also you can disable the cp spawning from the overpop side after a % of overpop so they force to use fru only. Usually with overpop when a spawn goes down the town go down fast this way the underpop side has a chance.

Number of AOs should use as a criteria the nymbers of the side which has the lower numbers and not according to the total server population.

Of course there is nothing you can do to stop the overpop especially in tz3 when you have 30 vs 5 still the side with the 30 people will cap town but you can delay them instead of capping 3-4 town they will cap 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this could work. Allow F2P players access to better equipment when logging to underpop side.

Yes...like this idea for the most part, but also it needs to be clear to FTP players that once there is balance...access to additional weapons will no longer be available.

The mechanics of this would have to be thought out carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the timers both being faster for underpop and longer for overpop.

Keep the ideas coming, we need a full effort of really creative thinking without going too over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the timers both being faster for underpop and longer for overpop.

Keep the ideas coming, we need a full effort of really creative thinking without going too over the top.

can this vary based on number of people in the cap building too?

the thought is, if you're massively overpop your firepower in the field at any given moment is superior. if the cap timer is slower, AND you have to pile more people into the kill zone just to move the needle, then the under populated side gets sort of a firepower multiplier by way of the cap building killzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Force Multipliers

As imbalance grows the under populated side is given more and more force multipliers.

It is important that both sides are regularly informed by the system or by a dedicated tunable channel of population status so both sides know the rules that are in effect.

Trying to control play choices will always fail. You have to find way to make the underpopulated side more effective without punishing the overpopulated side.

Here are my force multiplier ideas.

1. More accurate AI

2. Greater AI firing arcs.

(AI ATGs need to upgrade to T1 at the start of T2)

3. Increase EWS range as imbalance grows.

4. EWS provides local intell messages. (Tank SE Haybes. Truck N of Haybes)

5. Local messages regarding ongoing caps. (Haybes Revin CP under cap)

6. Local messages warning about enemy units in the AB). (Tank in Haybes AB)

7. Side messages regarding FB damage, bridge damage or repair and RDP.

8. Side messages incoming attacks. (13 enemy ground units spotted Haybes 3 enemy tanks 2 enemy trucks)

9. Increased cap timers for overpopulated side and decreased for underpopulated side.

What order to employ these in can be discussed. Maybe let the HC decide.

Edited by arno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we don't seem to want to have F2P locked to low pop, why not give them incentive to go to the low pop side. F2P gets starter sub gear for playing low pop. Starter sub gets next level and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we don't seem to want to have F2P locked to low pop, why not give them incentive to go to the low pop side. F2P gets starter sub gear for playing low pop. Starter sub gets next level and so on.

This is a good idea...Got to lure numbers to the low pop side some how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we don't seem to want to have F2P locked to low pop, why not give them incentive to go to the low pop side. F2P gets starter sub gear for playing low pop. Starter sub gets next level and so on.

If points/XP meant anything to vets, bonus points for the underpop side would be a good way to do it.

They do mean something for newer accounts however. Maybe instead of advertising the underpop side as "Underpopulated" you could have it say "Bonus points active!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.