BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

231 posts in this topic

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.

Okay then just bring on a GM arbitrarily during TZ3 to stop town captures for 8-12 hours or however long. That's actually better because they can implement the policy tomorrow instead of patching in a new game rule.

I think that there are many things imbalanced with the basic gameplay but there are a lot of people here that say "it's not the gameplay, it's TZ3". So once TZ3 is firmly out of the way people will have no choice but to look at something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real answer here is just more players and hope it balances out

You would think constantly capping 18 towns a day ,90% in tz3 against next to 0 opposition would get boring for 1 side but i guess not

It does not help having 1 side asking for the other to be nerfed while screaming for fantasy equipment constantly either

Last map all tz's were pretty balanced and we had some great fights win or lose it was fun

How to get back to that without punishing anyone or any side is the puzzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real answer here is just more players and hope it balances out

You would think constantly capping 18 towns a day ,90% in tz3 against next to 0 opposition would get boring for 1 side but i guess not

It does not help having 1 side asking for the other to be nerfed while screaming for fantasy equipment constantly either

Last map all tz's were pretty balanced and we had some great fights win or lose it was fun

How to get back to that without punishing anyone or any side is the puzzle

This is why they should just halt capture during TZ3.

The first WBS campaign barely lasted three weeks, it was a miserable series of allied armor camps that hit all the returning players and there are people here that think it was balanced. TZ3 is the scapegoat for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why they should just halt capture during TZ3.

The first WBS campaign barely lasted three weeks, it was a miserable series of allied armor camps that hit all the returning players and there are people here that think it was balanced. TZ3 is the scapegoat for everything.

This is why we have to have balance for both sides 24/7 and end the Cycle of Suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For balancing of game due different timezones halve the price for players "from TZ3". Maybe at first for 6 months. If then will be visible some changes, then will be a reason to look over whole pricing plan etc.

Imo, a side balancing problem is harder just then, when are too few players in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, a side balancing problem is harder just then, when are too few players in game.

Yeah it definitely is, unfortunately I think just about every other aspect of game balance has been ignored because the devs have all focused on trying to keep one side from having more players than the other, particularly during TZ3. So the quicker that is removed from the equation everyone will finally have to look at rest of the game.

I mean this is thread about game balance, just read this thread and count the number of posts discussing:

tank vs. ATG

tank vs. infantry

bomber vs. tank

bomber vs. fighter

AA vs. planes

automatic weapons vs. bolt-actions

PPO usage

skill floors and skill ceilings...

There's basically nothing it's all talk about player numbers. Even when depot capture timers are mentioned there's no discussion about how long timers have put a massive emphasis on close quarters battle vs open fighting, it's all in the context of player numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah it definitely is, unfortunately I think just about every other aspect of game balance has been ignored because the devs have all focused on trying to keep one side from having more players than the other, particularly during TZ3. So the quicker that is removed from the equation everyone will finally have to look at rest of the game.

I mean this is thread about game balance, just read this thread and count the number of posts discussing:

tank vs. ATG

tank vs. infantry

bomber vs. tank

bomber vs. fighter

AA vs. planes

automatic weapons vs. bolt-actions

PPO usage

skill floors and skill ceilings...

There's basically nothing it's all talk about player numbers. Even when depot capture timers are mentioned there's no discussion about how long timers have put a massive emphasis on close quarters battle vs open fighting, it's all in the context of player numbers.

most of that stuff you listed have been discussed to hell on their respective forum sections.

I'm more upset there's not much about attacking vs defending, if we turn up our volume and spawn when ews goes off we can completely kill a attack. i mean the trucks are louder than most of our armor and aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why everyone is so against an 'in world' lock at extreme population. You can get in game, just can't spawn in world if ratio is to high, until someone dies, spawns out, or enemy spawns in.

Can it really hurt limiting 5 people for a short time during our least populated time to keep balance somewhat maintained?

Start the ratio at 3 to 1 if to scared to try 2 to 1. (not even sure we really get these odds though) I'd probably start it at 3 to 2. We can move to 4 to 3 or even 5 to 4 maybe later.

Why do we let an hour or two of extreme over pop dictate the game? Simply don't allow it. Again, don't allow it. No game would ever allow 4 to 1 odds, if this game actually gets to that ratio. So, why do we? We know the solution, just do it.

Lock the in game world at some high pop ratio.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know idf this is codeable, but...

When one side outnumbers the other by 2 or more to 1, then require a larger minimum of players to cap any CP.

If the odds are 2-1, then it takes 2 players on the OP side to cap anything. If one of them gets killed, the timer stops. The same for 3-1 or 4-1 odds.

I know that we often pack CPs to cap, but a lot of the time, caps are done by one person. removing that option from am OP side might make playing the underpop side more attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why everyone is so against an 'in world' lock at extreme population. You can get in game, just can't spawn in world if ratio is to high, until someone dies, spawns out, or enemy spawns in.

Can it really hurt limiting 5 people for a short time during our least populated time to keep balance somewhat maintained?

Start the ratio at 3 to 1 if to scared to try 2 to 1. (not even sure we really get these odds though) I'd probably start it at 3 to 2. We can move to 4 to 3 or even 5 to 4 maybe later.

Why do we let an hour or two of extreme over pop dictate the game? Simply don't allow it. Again, don't allow it. No game would ever allow 4 to 1 odds, if this game actually gets to that ratio. So, why do we? We know the solution, just do it.

Lock the in game world at some high pop ratio.

Nope.

Goes against the very thing people are paying for- 24/7 persistent world meaningful battle with the side of their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know idf this is codeable, but...

When one side outnumbers the other by 2 or more to 1, then require a larger minimum of players to cap any CP.

If the odds are 2-1, then it takes 2 players on the OP side to cap anything. If one of them gets killed, the timer stops. The same for 3-1 or 4-1 odds.

I know that we often pack CPs to cap, but a lot of the time, caps are done by one person. removing that option from am OP side might make playing the underpop side more attractive.

Read up on my pop neutrality thread please, it's all there.

I doubt very much though that ninjas will switch sides based on single cap denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

===

Nope. Goes against the very thing people are paying for- 24/7 persistent world meaningful battle with the side of their choice.

===

Your evidence for saying no is flawed.

You state they are paying for:

1) 24/7 persistent world - irrelevant, game is still 24/7 with a spawn in lock

2) Meaningful battle - 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 is not meaningful, this SUPPORTS the spawn in lock

3) Side of choice - ok, not sure on this one; where does the company say you can always chose the side you want, w/o conditions?

I'm surprised you don't see the elegance of this solution. It will rarely come into effect, and when it does, it is during the lowest of game pop time. Effecting the least amount of people, yet solving a problem that impacts all TZs and the most amount of people.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGAINST side lock. that is nonsense as players don't spend the same amount of time ingame. so you may have a 300 vs 20 situation which would be impossible to correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a side lock. It is an 'in world' lock. You can always log into the side you want and play.

Example, TZ3, there are 10 allies and 20 axis; - no issues; everything normal regards to play (not sure how SD works here)

Then, 2 allies log off; it's now 20 axis and 8 allies; if all 8 allies are logged in, only 17 axis will be able to be in world at one time; the other 3 will be on their side and in game, but not spawned in. (since 16 to 8 is not over 2 to 1, the system will allow the 17th axis to spawn in, the next axis that tries to spawn in world will be denied as pop is OVER a 2 to 1 ratio)

The only way those 3 axis players will be able to spawn 'in world' is if:

1) axis player dies

2) axis player spawns out

3) additional allied player spawns in world

This will only invoke during our lowest of population times and at the worst population imbalance. Exactly the time we need to work on to keep the game playable.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am putting this idea out again.

When we talk about getting people to switch sides, we aren't talking about the hardcores and vets that stick to one side no matter what (or at least for a whole map).

We are talking about newer players

What do new players want? Ability to use better equipment.

How do they get that? Earning points to rank up.

Simple solution. Offer more points to low pop side for killing, capping, guarding, blowing fbs and factories, . A "battle hardened bonus".

Give another bonus to anyone gaining points in critical facilities such as spawns, abs and docks. (Again, only on low-pop) side.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not a side lock. It is an 'in world' lock. You can always log into the side you want and play.

Example, TZ3, there are 10 allies and 20 axis; - no issues; everything normal regards to play (not sure how SD works here)

Then, 2 allies log off; it's now 20 axis and 8 allies; if all 8 allies are logged in, only 17 axis will be able to be in world at one time; the other 3 will be on their side and in game, but not spawned in. (since 16 to 8 is not over 2 to 1, the system will allow the 17th axis to spawn in, the next axis that tries to spawn in world will be denied as pop is OVER a 2 to 1 ratio)

The only way those 3 axis players will be able to spawn 'in world' is if:

1) axis player dies

2) axis player spawns out

3) additional allied player spawns in world

This will only invoke during our lowest of population times and at the worst population imbalance. Exactly the time we need to work on to keep the game playable.

You are leaving out number 4 and 5.

4) Player gets upset and decides not to play because of the frustration ofwaiting until someone dies.

5) If it happens more than a couple of nights, the player is extremely likely to take his gaming business elsewhere.

I know this for a fact. Players go to a game and expect to be able to PLAY.

A similar issue happened to me with the new WWII game in town, H&G. I was new and died a lot in my first match. All of a sudden I was locked out of the game because there were no more level 1 rifleman units available. I was a little frustrated, Then, when I wanted to spawn out and go to another match, I received a message that if I logged out of the match I was in I would get no experience for that match. So I was locked into a match that I was unable to play in for over 20 minutes until it ended. Now I KNOW it's a different scenariop, but the basic principal applied. I was there to PLAY, and I was locked out unless I wanted to accept a panelty that negated all of my previous efforts. I never played that game again.

Lock a player out of a game for an extended period and they WILL leave. While it might ensure a more balanced game, it WILL ensure lost customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low pop side ML should have the capability to place a static position AI of tanks/light LMGs/SmG etc ANYWHERE in either the attacking or defending objective. Obviously, there would be a limit as to how many times he can do this. This will prevent steam rolling over the low pop side and would provide a challenge to the high pop side as these AI's will need to be eliminated. These AI's will have a fairly accurate shot but can be killed with one good placement of a shot. Tank AI's will be stationary as well, but it's turret can rotate to kill. One should not be able to distinguished wether it's an AI or an actual player.

This action depicts a leader who commands the placement of his equipment.

Just like on offline mode you would press the spacebar and your AI is placed.

Team Fortress 2 has this capability so I can't imagine this game can't have this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been suggested before, so I'll pop it out there.

We know that a LOT of people care about stats. They want to be considered a top player.

We also know that in general, when one side is overpopped, it tends to be a game of 'club the baby seals'.

What if CRS adjusted the stats? Consider that when we talk about the pop situation, it's an "if pop is greater than X, then Y" sort of situation. And pop tends to change pretty quickly, so any solution has to be somewhat fluid.

So what if the system was set to a 5 minute interval check of the population. If pop reaches more than 2-1, then stats start being affected.

A suggested stat adjustment would be that all points and credit be halved for the OP side, and doubled for the underpopped side.

Stat Overpopped Underpopped

Kill enemy 1/2 kill 2 kills

Cap CP 1/2 Cap 2 caps

All XP Halved Doubled

Doing this would help equal out the fact that underpopped players tend to get seriously whomped on.

This solution would affect access to a lot of players on the OP side, slowing their level advance and equipment access, and affect stats for those players who care more about their position on the Leader Boards than XP. If the game starts cutting into the Capping, killing and K/D stats, then people might start considering evening out the pop on their own.

While it's true that some would be upset, it does make some sense that players shouldn't get the same rewards for cakewalks as for challenging battles.

Edited by Quincannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our players don't swich sides. if they do they're kicked out of their squads.

if they switch frequently they'll be permanently kicked out. there is no side switching issue.

i remember a post suggesting resetting our ranks to 0 every camp (and being very generous with points) how about that and the underpop point bonus.

or... make points currency (while still being very generous with them) and increasing the capture points as well as awarding points for partial captures.

with point currency we can requisition the better stuff.

ok hear me out now this is how it'll balance itself out

  1. say someone gets a tiger for idk 1000 points,
  2. he kills 10 inf(100pts) and 4 stus(800pts) netting 900points before dying to a stu.
  3. the tiger was overpop, so his 900 points are reduced to 600
  4. the stu was underpop, he gets 1500 points say 3-4 shermans.
  5. so, in the end the 1000 point tiger gets 600 points for a net loss of 400
  6. while the underpop 200 point stu gets 1500 netting 1300 points

now the points currency is complementary to a standard ToE or reserved for higher rank stuff like the level 3+ gear.

can go even further by making the points tied to RDP, having squad point pools (exchanging and donating to each other), buying rank (pilots using ground points), or buying prototypes.

i made a thread about it if you want to discuss it

Edited by major0noob
link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tieing pop balance to rdp, and removing SD

say 30s SD equivalent gives 30% faster rdp (then pausing rdp till the other side catches up)

might light some interest in the loosing side, it'll certanlly improve gameplay.

like the early Russian horde vs the German war machine, or the late German milita vs the Soviets Greatest military in the history of the world.

so underpop gets to be a technologically advanced underdog, while the overpop has to overcome a better army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such variant (though expensive) - Both sides will have something like a clip, which will consist some historical, but rare weapons, vehicles, maybe even airplanes. Now, this clips will activated only when side is heavily in underpop. That mean, player on this side can to spawn with this weapon, vehicle etc. if his side is in considerable quantitative minority.

And yes, this IS expensive, because logically devs have a strong need to put all available models into live game, to attract customers, existing and potential. And therefore holding of some models somewhere in store would be a very hard temptation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increase stamina for low pop ( inf can run arther, need to stop less, cover more ground which should be a force mutiplier, mixed with reduced cap timers.

Edited by petie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRST thing what is needing for balance are germany tanks :( if cant destroy char or matilda with NOTHING , its realy idiotic. Some people say its balance for 88 .
ITS IMPOSIBLE balancing SELFPROPPELED GUN by TOWED gun which can destry even rifleman :( AND GERMANY TANKS LINES GIVE TO CRS SO GOOD OPORTUNITY TO UPGRAGE WITH MINIMUM RESOURCES !!!!!!!  PZ III J or L , PZ IV J,  PZ VII H 

same luftwafe , FW A7 A8 A9 , bf110 F4 ( 2x 30mm cannon ) ETC ETC

btw fw190 A5 was OPONENT OF SPIT 5 !!!!!!!!! not 9 !!!! vs 9 we suppost get fw190D !

 

IS LOT OF WAYS how give new maschines to germany , But i just start thinking that simply CRC dont care :( i came back after 1 year, and when i see that NOTHING WAS CHANGE on germany side ,

i`m thinking cancel my account next month :(

 

Zvire

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zvire said:

FIRST thing what is needing for balance are germany tanks :( if cant destroy char or matilda with NOTHING , its realy idiotic. Some people say its balance for 88 .
ITS IMPOSIBLE balancing SELFPROPPELED GUN by TOWED gun which can destry even rifleman :( AND GERMANY TANKS LINES GIVE TO CRS SO GOOD OPORTUNITY TO UPGRAGE WITH MINIMUM RESOURCES !!!!!!!  PZ III J or L , PZ IV J,  PZ VII H 

same luftwafe , FW A7 A8 A9 , bf110 F4 ( 2x 30mm cannon ) ETC ETC

btw fw190 A5 was OPONENT OF SPIT 5 !!!!!!!!! not 9 !!!! vs 9 we suppost get fw190D !

 

IS LOT OF WAYS how give new maschines to germany , But i just start thinking that simply CRC dont care :( i came back after 1 year, and when i see that NOTHING WAS CHANGE on germany side ,

i`m thinking cancel my account next month :(

 

Zvire

The missing bit from the German tank park in T0 is the PzjgrI.

 

It's that sweet sweet Czech 47mm you want.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerjäger_I

 

That max 60-70mm penetration is the tungsten rounds, 40-50mm for the regular AP.

 

That is a high speed velocity gun, so flat trajectory for good first round hits at superior ranges to T0 Allied optic/gun combos.

 

Is it going to break Matty camps by itself? 

 

Likely no.

 

Can it ruin Allied tank attacks with a one-man crew driving out and TD sniping?

 

Oh my yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.