BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

218 posts in this topic

Let's take a hockey game. Each team has 5 players on ice + goaler.

TOM 20% : it suggest that during a week of activity, a side had power play 6 vs 5. Imagine the final score if a game lasts a week long. I bet the underpop team would probably lose something like 25 to 500 (and go on burnout! lol)

Until new mechanics are in place to control balance, (or players balance the game by themselves)

SD should be way more than 30 SD.

1.5:1 ratio : 30 secs (30 players against 20 or 60 against 40)

2:1 ratio : 60 secs

3:1 120 secs

4:1 240 secs (5 against 20)

Softcappers gangbanger had their fun for years now, time to cut their fun throat destroying campaigns of thousands more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Force Multipliers

i've only seen this term used when US army guys are trying to get promoted, like the military version of office management buzzwords

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)

these fill the underpop void perfectly, no marks or comms while underpop just makes being underpop worse. maybe make it a command like .own but automatic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem Statement:

As population imbalance grows, the side with the higher population dominates game play.

Map control falls to the side with greatest population, allowing them to take cities with little or not effort, even if maximally defended by the low population side. This further creates problems as the high population side can then use their advantage to cut off and trap brigades or even divisions. This then further snow balls the advantage because now the low population side no longer has sufficient units to correct any map issues created by the temporary over population, even should they become the over population side later.

Player experience suffers greatly on both sides as well. The over population side gets a big moral boost, but some players report being “bored” at the same time. Even for regular players, such caps are far less fun than ones that are hotly contested. It also creates a mind set that victories should come very quickly, and easily, without tactical considerations: spawn guarding stops, creating control points, running FRUs, guarding Forward Bases all become boring tasks that don’t need doing. The result is that long term game play suffers terribly. No longer are AOs something that are planned and executed and coordinated, but instead become attrition hammer fests, where the side with the greatest stamina wins by attrition alone.

The low population side really suffers the most. Their moral hits a low very quickly, many players spawn in, check how bad over population is, and then simply sign off. Those who do play, quickly tire and do not play as long as they normally would. It also creates a defensive mind set very quickly. “We can’t attack” becomes the mantra, even when excellent attack opportunities present themselves, it becomes extremely difficult to get anyone working on the attack. Even when an attack starts to go well, rarely do find more than one or two FRUs. Thus when the FRU is destroyed, moral tanks instantly and the attack is completely dead.

Even HC players become infected by these opposing feelings. This side with the most over populations becomes very aggressive, making attacks that would never succeed if the populations were more balanced, creating long looping chains of captured cities that would normally be vulnerable to cuts, but because of the population difference instead become pockets with low population brigades cut off.

The low population HC simply stop signing on. Those that do are disheartened or new to HC. They new HC players don’t understand a lot of the basic rules, like why HQ units need to be near their children, how to use .du and .ne, and fallback rules. This means that when the high population side is ruling the map, the low population side cannot respond in a meaningful way. The new HC player become quickly frustrated and they get targeted by the player base as well as any veteran HC players. Veteran HC players on the low population side by and large either don’t sign in, or refuse to take the map.

Solutions

1)Free to Play accounts:

Free to Play accounts are a great way to be introduced to the game mechanics and game play. They also present an opportunity to balance population. When they log in, they should be forced to play on the low population side.

This has several effects, most of them good, and only one not so good.

Free to Play accounts will then balance to some extent the population difference. And, it will annoy them to a small extent that they cannot play the side they wish to play, presenting CRS with an opportunity to get them to upgrade to a monthly pay account.

For Example:

“Due to Population imbalance, Free to Play accounts are required to play on the low population side. To avoid this restriction consider upgrading to a monthly subscription. Subscriptions start at $7.99 per month”

2) Garrisons:

Currently, once the over population side breaks through the line, they have access to cities with no defender brigades in them, meaning that they can now take cities with even less effort and create more cut off brigades more rapidly. Clearly this is going to greatly impact game play on both sides. Once the linking CP is taken the defenders cannot spawn in at all. The attack them becomes a soft cap, with no combat at all.

A simple Garrison in every city without a brigade in it would create opportunities for the defending side to create missions and spawn in to defend the city right down to the last CP. Even if the population difference is massive, this still creates combat opportunities. Once the AB falls, any remaining CPs can still spawn in garrison troops, I would suggest that this mechanism be extended to cities that HAD a brigade in them but that was bounced due to the loss of the AB.

This would also help with the issue of both inexperienced HC and no HC situations. Now, even if the HC player doesn’t understand how to cover the break through, they will still have some extra time and leeway to figure something out. Meanwhile, players will still have opportunities for effective play.

3) AI Position

Dynamically changing AI would be a very effective tool for managing population imbalance.

A simple mechanism that increases the accuracy and range of low population AI and decreases them for the high population side could probably be implemented fairly easily.

A further enhancement would be to increase the number of AI positions as the population swings further out of balance.

At base, reworking AI positions to be more effective would be a good idea in all cases. Many AI placements currently server no purpose at all: lines of sight are blocked by buildings, facing the wrong direction, or facing in a poor direction, lack of converging arcs of fire and so on are all issues with the current AI placements.

The more effective AI is the more difficult it is for the high population side to quickly and easily take a city. In larger cities the AI could even be placed in concrete or wooden bunkers to make them much harder to kill from a great range.

4) Forward Resupply Unit

Currently the FRU must be placed by a truck. The current FRU is reasonably non-conspicuous, but very fragile, a single grenade can destroy it.

I have several suggestions for FRU changes to support better side balance.

Trucks:

Trucks should be able to spawn troops directly when they are stopped. Once stopped the driver should be able to deploy a park brake, then foot soldiers can spawn in directly from the truck while it remains stationary. But only if there is no FRU on the mission, and it would be limited to one truck per mission, perhaps simply only the current mission leader can use a truck in this way. But that would still allow the current .makeleader command to be used to effectively pass the spawn point between tactically deployed trucks.

You can vary the brake deployment time to be similar to FRU placement time for population control.

You can remove the FRU placement range, allowing the truck to deploy troops very close to capture points and FBs.

The truck driver would get points for each unit spawned from the truck. It makes trucks an important unit in game play.

This would require the allied side to have a toughened vehicle like the Axis 251. Perhaps for British Units this could be Universal Carrier(AKA Bren Carrier), some 100,000 were produced by the British alone, and as many by the Canadians. By the time of D-Day landings they were as common in allied units as trucks and jeeps in American units. And many times more common than the axis 251 1/2 track.

FRU itself:

FRUs should probably be toughened. When attacking from a low population side there is often only one FRU, and few players using it, even when it is an effective FRU. A single axis player, watching the ant trail created by the players can quickly find the FRU and kill it and the attack with a single grenade. This is far less true on the over population side, as the defenders are more often than not so hard pressed and so dominated that FRU hunting is simply not possible. Therefore, any changes to the strength and effectiveness of the FRU will have the most effect on the low population side.

I would suggest leaving the current placement mechanisms in place, but change the design and strength of the FRU. Design wise it would be lower, only a single box high, perhaps surrounded by a circle of sand bags and disguise vegetation, even when placed in the middle of an open field. And make it require four grenades, or two HE rounds, or one 250lb bomb inside the circle. Firing HE from outside the circle would often hit the sand bags, not the supplies, so reasonably it would take more than one HE round to kill a supply dump. Perhaps even allow satchel charges to destroy a FRU.

5) Attack Orders:

Currently either an active HC player or the system is required to place an AO before any action can take place in a given city. The systems does not move AO’s, it can only place one if there is none placed.

I consider this proposal to be rather out there. It’s risky, and it greatly changes the game dynamic. Without trying it out, one cannot be sure if it would work or not. I think it might actually be rather difficult to code appropriately as well. But, given all that, it is an idea that could work and create a far more dynamic and exciting game.

If you were to change the attack mechanism so that FRONT LINE CITIES can have any CP but NOT AB, Docks, or Airfields, attacked and captured at any time, even without an AO, that would greatly change the attack and defence dynamic.

Yes, the high population side could then spread out their attacks across a large number of cities, forcing the low population side to spread themselves out even thinner. But, at the same time, it is going to allow the low population side to concentrate their defences on only cities with active AOs on them.

It would also allow the low population side to dynamically assign their AO where it would count the most. Forcing the high population side to cover any city that is becoming capped, because that city could become an AO object at any time.

To make it work effectively you would have to code in a system AO that can be moved dynamically as the potential for success changes from one city to another, driven by player participation.

HC would likewise have to be able to respond quickly to player actions and they would have to become cheer leaders for their own Map Agenda.

It would allow for squads to create their squad operation directed at any front line city they feel might have a chance of success.

Furthermore, it would require that the AO lift and place time change dynamically as well. To manage population imbalances you would have to allow the low population time to place and remove AOs faster than the over population side.

All these would be rather difficult, I recognize that, but I felt this idea had to be shared as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make all the guys on the overpop side appear to the enemy to be wearing bright red and have them glow in the dark. :)

*removes tongue from cheek*

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the main problem here is that a bunch of people are making arguments on how to thwart map movement when one side is overpopulated, when really players are fine with overpop they just don't want the map moving during TZ3.

If balancing overpopulation was the goal then spawn delay would not have been capped at 30 seconds and FB destruction not been made far more difficult. Blowing FBs was the #1 way for an underpop side to hold the line against an overpopped team. Spawn delay used to routinely hit 180+ seconds and crippled town capture for the overpop team. Thus overpop during TZ2 is legit(and TZ1 now I guess?) while overpop during TZ3 is game-breaking.

So the real solution you guys have been trying to reach is how to shut down overpop in TZ3 without also dropping the hammer on the overpop team during TZ2. If you lengthen overpop capture timers and shorten the underpop capture timers it's going to backfire because allied prime attacks in TZ2 will suffer significantly while the infantry-heavy axis will be getting a big boost to diversionary attacks and recaptures. There might be support for that now but I predict big problems eventually if it gets implemented. I think that just increasing the capture timers for the overpop side will be the solution. TZ3 still gets stopped, TZ2 gets slowed down as well but realistically that just means that the attackers in TZ2 have longer to farm and drain the brigade. Same for TZ1 prime if it ever comes back.

Anyway once map movement in TZ3 is eliminated you're going to have to figure out a way to get euro players to log in and pay and play when they'll be at a permanent strategic disadvantage versus the people in TZ2. Even if resupply timers are 12-16 hours one team will still have a long time to maneuver and recover while the other will have every mistake and weakness immediately exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One:

Remove population statuses from the persona screen. Nobody knows who is requesting reinforcements, etc. Fog of war and all that.

Two:

FTP get a rifle and can cap CPs. They are side-locked to the underpop, period. Paying players should be rewarded with the freedom to choose. FTP? Tough crap, moocher. Pay up -ask your mommy for allowance, go cut the grass, rob an old lady, whatever. Pay. we need money, not FTP turds stinking up the joint and using resources being paid for by subscribers and CAUSING FURTHER SIDE POPULATION IMBALANCES.

Three:

Cap Timer adjustments -low-pop caps faster, high pop caps slower.

Speaks for itself.

Four:

(The Nuclear Option,)

EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO SIDE-BALANCING BASED ON POPULATION BALANCING.

Just like myriad other games that don't even LAUNCH a round until the sides are both filled and even. You wait until each arena is ready and then you get to play.

Edited by vasduten1

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.

if you ask players to actually stick together as a group, unbalance is gone forever since a 4 vs 8 players facing each other sill let uncertitude about who may win.

make changes that will encourage team play, and add features that make battles balancing themselves (like adding smoke rounds to armored units, adding defensive PPOS, adding more hardened obstacles, redoing a smarter design for capture areas with open air access, etc)

forget about these complex variable rules. that doesn't work.

Even forcing f2p to the less populated side would be though to support.

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the real solution you guys have been trying to reach is how to shut down overpop in TZ3 without also dropping the hammer on the overpop team during TZ2.

We talk about mitigating overwhelmed ratio 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and more to prevent a side to roll another one. It's easy to access that ratio when the server is in low pop. You will never see these ratios occurring during other timezone, or very VERY rarely.

Fact, during weekend days, no pop rolls doesn't occur cause allied side has more than 8-10 allied online so the ratio might be tougher to reach 3:1 or 4:1 versus during weekdays when it can reach 3:1 and 4:1 when 4 key towns fall in an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We talk about mitigating overwhelmed ratio 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and more to prevent a side to roll another one. It's easy to access that ratio when the server is in low pop. You will never see these ratios occurring during other timezone, or very VERY rarely.

Fact, during weekend days, no pop rolls doesn't occur cause allied side has more than 8-10 allied online so the ratio might be tougher to reach 3:1 or 4:1 versus during weekdays when it can reach 3:1 and 4:1 when 4 key towns fall in an hour.

Look I don't care about the justification I'm clarifying what's meant by "balance" because people are talking about stopping the overpopulated team at the same time overpop has been buffed in several ways. It's pretty obvious now that by a balanced game they mean some sort of fair competition between euro and US prime with no other factors to upset this.

So blanket rules to hurt the overpopulated team at any time will backfire(they have, that's the main reason spawn delay finally got capped at 30 seconds), it will require unique solutions that will hurt overpop only in TZ3 while leaving the other TZs free to overpop. After you implement those and safely eliminate TZ3 from play then you are going to have a balance problem between euro and US prime.

Another issue that's already affecting the game and that is probably going to get worse with any proposed solution to buff the underpop side is the incentive for a team to reduce it's own population. If AOs ever get counted according to the smallest team instead of total server pop then it will be really easy to stop momentum just by logging off. I've also seen posters request additional supplies and even RDP buffs for the underpop side which would be really easy to exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So blanket rules to hurt the overpopulated team at any time will backfire(they have, that's the main reason spawn delay finally got capped at 30 seconds), it will require unique solutions that will hurt overpop only in TZ3 while leaving the other TZs free to overpop. After you implement those and safely eliminate TZ3 from play then you are going to have a balance problem between euro and US prime.

It's all about ratios. If people can't play fair, you have to be rude so extend SD when ratio hits 2:1 to 60 SD and 120 SD 3:1. Period.

A 3:1, that happens often during weekdays and kills campaigns.

It means put 9 hockey players against 3 on the ice.

Bonsoir le torchage.

A05bOLgjiB4

Edited by matamor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts . First and fore most is a 24hr side lock . As i have seen over the years it is only about 5-10 players difference . With toes going out the window this will be huge .( no more freak bull**** sofcaps with brigade stuck behind in less then 1 hr later loosing 10 towns . I think the spawn delay is good idea . But needs to be tweeked . Anything where it is more then 33% over pop side . Another change lock that side that is over popped until balanced .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you REALLY want to add something, then let's use the carrot :

Give F2P (="reserve troops") access to some premium equipment in the underpopulated side.

The more important the unbalance, the higher equipment they may spawn with. As someone said, that equipment isn't used anyway, so let's drag these F2P to the lowest populated side and give them some fun. Furthermore they won't lack of targets to shoot at.

You may either imagine access to specific equipment, or better, to access previous tier(s) or current tier equipment according to the unbalance ratio, like illustrated below, or a mix of both (to avoid issue in Tier0).

Some pop-up window could show more details about what equipment is available for reserve troops

bUOwLi.png

.

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One:

Remove population statuses from the persona screen. Nobody knows who is requesting reinforcements, etc. Fog of war and all that.

Two:

FTP get a rifle and can cap CPs. They are side-locked to the underpop, period. Paying players should be rewarded with the freedom to choose. FTP? Tough crap, moocher. Pay up -ask your mommy for allowance, go cut the grass, rob an old lady, whatever. Pay. we need money, not FTP turds stinking up the joint and using resources being paid for by subscribers and CAUSING FURTHER SIDE POPULATION IMBALANCES.

Three:

Cap Timer adjustments -low-pop caps faster, high pop caps slower.

Speaks for itself.

Four:

(The Nuclear Option,)

EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO SIDE-BALANCING BASED ON POPULATION BALANCING.

Just like myriad other games that don't even LAUNCH a round until the sides are both filled and even. You wait until each arena is ready and then you get to play.

I went down the F2P route a long time ago. It's just not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reward players on the low pop side with more points for kills, caps, bridge/ factory damage.

No changing timers or damage or equipment availability. It also kinda makes sense, the kills etc you get when low pop are harder fought. I don't think testing this out or implementing it would be too difficult either.

edit: even if it doesn't completely fix it, it may help to get 1-2 newer players to pick the low pop side. At the same time it doesn't really effect the gameplay, only the issue of pop balance.

Edited by miked420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all about ratios. If people can't play fair, you have to be rude so extend SD when ratio hits 2:1 to 60 SD and 120 SD 3:1. Period.

A 3:1, that happens often during weekdays and kills campaigns.

It means put 9 hockey players against 3 on the ice.

You might think it's a good idea but I'm telling you that a severe overpop penalty isn't going to happen again unless they can exempt TZ2. That's what triggered the cap, allies during that time got hit with 220 seconds or so of spawn delay. The game population is too low now to screw over a main time zone of players.

At any rate the game has spent years heavily punishing high population(to the point of losing thousands of subscriptions) and rewarding low population and "imbalance" is still a major problem, so I don't see how continuing to do so will suddenly improve balance. I'd say balance is worse now because instead of many large organized groups of players you now have 1-4 small squads left in game that muster <20 people on a night. Combined with many good leaders leaving there's now very little to keep an entire side from just logging off when things go bad.

A real solution would be to change the town layouts and rules so that an attacker doesn't need many more players than the defender in order to capture a town. Right now if both teams are balanced at a town(the fair fight that everyone here claims to want) then the defender is going to win virtually every time, and the map will only move if HC screws up with supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might think it's a good idea but I'm telling you that a severe overpop penalty isn't going to happen again unless they can exempt TZ2.

Why exemptions? Like I said, if people can't balance it, the game manager should put restrictions up. Like it or not. Losing 10 towns every night cause 2 squads playing the same side along with few blue tags fights AIs, this is unhealthy for all other time zones and the game overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shutdown the spawn list when balance tips too far in either direction. Cap it at 1.5 attackers per defender (or other ratio, just test it) for any AO. When said ratio is reached, spawning is softly locked (leave room for some ebb and flow using timers once your magic ratio is touched) forcing the extras to work another objective for a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the main problem here is that a bunch of people are making arguments on how to thwart map movement when one side is overpopulated, when really players are fine with overpop they just don't want the map moving during TZ3.

If balancing overpopulation was the goal then spawn delay would not have been capped at 30 seconds and FB destruction not been made far more difficult. Blowing FBs was the #1 way for an underpop side to hold the line against an overpopped team. Spawn delay used to routinely hit 180+ seconds and crippled town capture for the overpop team. Thus overpop during TZ2 is legit(and TZ1 now I guess?) while overpop during TZ3 is game-breaking.

So the real solution you guys have been trying to reach is how to shut down overpop in TZ3 without also dropping the hammer on the overpop team during TZ2. If you lengthen overpop capture timers and shorten the underpop capture timers it's going to backfire because allied prime attacks in TZ2 will suffer significantly while the infantry-heavy axis will be getting a big boost to diversionary attacks and recaptures. There might be support for that now but I predict big problems eventually if it gets implemented. I think that just increasing the capture timers for the overpop side will be the solution. TZ3 still gets stopped, TZ2 gets slowed down as well but realistically that just means that the attackers in TZ2 have longer to farm and drain the brigade. Same for TZ1 prime if it ever comes back.

Anyway once map movement in TZ3 is eliminated you're going to have to figure out a way to get euro players to log in and pay and play when they'll be at a permanent strategic disadvantage versus the people in TZ2. Even if resupply timers are 12-16 hours one team will still have a long time to maneuver and recover while the other will have every mistake and weakness immediately exploited.

TZ3 is not the only TZ getting beatings, Axis have been beat on in primetime and Euro Allies were historically beat on (although not so consistently and sometimes Allied advantaged lately).

The issue is to allow for attack 24/7 and not be forced into 100% D except by superior play.

Double the content, halve the sub losses, Axis has ability to attack at disadvantaged as much as any Allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might think it's a good idea but I'm telling you that a severe overpop penalty isn't going to happen again unless they can exempt TZ2. That's what triggered the cap, allies during that time got hit with 220 seconds or so of spawn delay. The game population is too low now to screw over a main time zone of players.

At any rate the game has spent years heavily punishing high population(to the point of losing thousands of subscriptions) and rewarding low population and "imbalance" is still a major problem, so I don't see how continuing to do so will suddenly improve balance. I'd say balance is worse now because instead of many large organized groups of players you now have 1-4 small squads left in game that muster <20 people on a night. Combined with many good leaders leaving there's now very little to keep an entire side from just logging off when things go bad.

A real solution would be to change the town layouts and rules so that an attacker doesn't need many more players than the defender in order to capture a town. Right now if both teams are balanced at a town(the fair fight that everyone here claims to want) then the defender is going to win virtually every time, and the map will only move if HC screws up with supply.

If we have true pop neutrality, I would make the offense easier. Any one of a number of ways to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One:

Remove population statuses from the persona screen. Nobody knows who is requesting reinforcements, etc. Fog of war and all that.

I think you are right about this, and a good reason to eliminate SD too, as that automatically gives the overpop side an automatic feel for how much they overpop the other side.

Two:

FTP get a rifle and can cap CPs. They are side-locked to the underpop, period. Paying players should be rewarded with the freedom to choose. FTP? Tough crap, moocher. Pay up -ask your mommy for allowance, go cut the grass, rob an old lady, whatever. Pay. we need money, not FTP turds stinking up the joint and using resources being paid for by subscribers and CAUSING FURTHER SIDE POPULATION IMBALANCES.

Hahahhahahahahaha!

Don't forget second accounts, probably more serious since that would be a vet player with extra goodies.

Three:

Cap Timer adjustments -low-pop caps faster, high pop caps slower.

Speaks for itself.

This is scary, you can't be agreeing with me.

Have you read my pop neutrality thread?

Four:

(The Nuclear Option,)

EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO SIDE-BALANCING BASED ON POPULATION BALANCING.

Just like myriad other games that don't even LAUNCH a round until the sides are both filled and even. You wait until each arena is ready and then you get to play.

Wolfboy, Delems and I have gone round and round on this one, you can read up on it in the Barracks, the general term used for it is Spawn Queue. I am utterly against it, people want to play with their guys, the game is selling 24/7 single arena battle access, we need to find another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw out another oldie but goodie- AO tied to opposing side pop.

So if the trigger for 2 AOs is say 50 total, and one side is 35 and the other 15, then the 15 get clobbered, or at least will spend their entire time defending if they want to achieve anything since any attack can be easily batted away.

If instead the trigger was 15 per AO of the opposing side, then the overpop 35 would get 1 AO, and the underpop 15 would get 2 AOs.

Coupled with the cap timer differential, the underpop side can cycle through threatening or even taking towns while going back to the defense as needed, and the overpop has to now worry about losing towns at a 2:1 rate so they are split up.

Full disclosure- in the thread where the Rats finally read the proposal, Doc was intrigued, but KFS1 was against it, in his view it increased the power of the overpop side by channeling them into fewer concentrated AOs.

My logic is that the frontage of exposed towns is directly proportional to the population actually on, and equal opportunity 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When gameplay fails to balance sides, let humans from both sides take it in charge by discussing around a table.

So would it be possible to add a two-sides chat channel, only available to HC people ?

Purpose : let them negociate battle conditions/areas with as objective to create fun for (steam) players. Some kind of 24/24 discussed scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.