BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

230 posts in this topic

For starters go back through every single piece of equipment and infantry and do a fair and unbiased damage modeling review. 

Let me give you an example: A few days ago I was guarding a CP on the lower floor where you enter the door and the little recess is to the right. A Brit SMG came in, didn't see me, so I lit him up with my MP34. I fired around 20 rounds into his back, he knew he was being fired at and returned fire oblivious that I was behind him, he was just firing blindly. I followed him around the corner after reloading and he was in the large room looking around, again, his back to me. I fired around 10 rounds into his back, then he turned and I fired around 6 or so rounds into his front before he returned fire and killed me. 

This kind of stuff is seen on Axis chat quite often. Too often to not believe there is a problem. By the way, this Isn't a rant, It is just an observation that I have seen, over and over and over.

I was listening to XOOM the other night on Discord, and I thought I heard you say you were looking at damage modeling, and that some of the coding appears to be "intentional" meaning to me, someone wanted to win regardless.

That would be the biggest way to bring balance is ensure unity within the damage models, then go from there.

And like other posters have said about a Steam release. Don't release it before the damage audit/review is done.  Player reviews are what make or break a game on steam. And I want this game to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, unchained said:

I fired around 20 rounds into his back, he knew he was being fired at and returned fire oblivious that I was behind him

That isn't the damage modeling though, i am pretty sure.
I think that is something going awry networking wise.
It happens to any game units, but infantry are of course the most obvious because in general BANG, you die.
I think by now everyone has seen the guy you describe, does not die, and seems like he is half out of kilter with the world, unaware there is an enemy in front
and acts like he is running in another time zone so to speak.

Actually i had my DD of all things do it once 2 camps ago
Left Oost, all good, get near Vliss, trying to skirt the shore guns, didnt quite skirt them, except i realize they are pounding me flat and it does not hurt.
So i sail right over to them, and it does not hurt.
Weird... So i reported myself

So i sail to breskens, which was active, but i only hear random battle sounds, and dont see anybody.
So i pull into the harbor and take the time to parallel park even, no body.
Then i see one little atg I say hi, he of course cant hear me cause he is axis, but i let him shoot me a bit. Im not shooting him cause i know something is wrong with
my sortie, but i figure if i stay in a bit it will let some data get collected.
little ATG vanishes then appears and he is pushing away then vanishes again, but i dont see anyone else. Now and then random unattached sounds.
Then i despawned. Afterwards i wonder if the ATG was really there, or if im just seeing a ghost player repeating his last actions.
Now apparently people could see me fine and were lighting me up but good.
And ya know Vliss shore guns will light a guy up and leave him sinking.

I think same thing is happening with infantry occasionally, like somehow they get out of sync with the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure this topic is still up and running, but here's my $.02:

 

The 1940 Battle for France and the low countries provides the foundation for a 'balanced' game.  As has undoubtedly been said a thousand times:  Model the equipment accurately, provide accurate spawn ratios, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

German equipment was not better, nor in most cases was it more plentiful than their Allied counterparts.

 

The germans, then, did not win because their equipment was better or more plentiful.  The germans won by focusing their assets in areas where the Allies had not, and by moving quickly enough that the Allies could not/did not react promptly or properly.  In a gaming sense, this would require pre-campaign planning by AHC and GHC officers, placing their initial assets as they saw fit.  Sometimes this would result in the germans picking correctly, and sometimes (one would hope) the Allies would pick correctly thus allowing the initial german push to be blunted, with the Allied intent being to last long enough for better (and more plentiful) equipment to start arriving.

 

Depending on deployment choices, we would see Allied towns being overrun with little if any chance at holding.  We would see the encircling of Allied forces that would run a risk of decimating their equipment numbers (forcing evacuations of large pieces of territory to keep the army intact).  We would see counterpunches from the Allies landing against german forces ill-equipped to survive, causing a risk to german forces and necessitating GHC choices on how to react.  In short, we would see a higher degree of variability in the combat types, and results.  Every campaign would conceivably be completely different than the one before, thus increasing player retention.

 

This was a goal of many of the original core of players that was screwed due to (opinion) poor modeling based on biased research.  This is not a rip on the RATS.  My belief is they were given biased data from original sources who turned out to be less than worthy of RATS' trust.  Most of that original core (of players) is presumably gone by now, but my bet is that many of them would still be here, and many would return, if things were based on the model I have put forth, for the low low price of my $.02. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi this is about the mechanism of 250kg bombs. im disappointed on that to kill a Sherman tank then you must get a direct hit with the 250kg bomb. and if you do get a direct hit it, the easiest way to do so is to drop it 1000m and then you get killed by the blast radius. I was Reading some facts about  tank bombing and i found a axis detonation test reports.
1942 detonation tests - Udetfield Upper Silesia, north of Beuthen ( Polish spelling “Bytom“)
Targets: ten Russian T-34, one American M-4 Sherman, three British Mark IV Churchill tanks
Bombs used: SC-250
Effect on T-34: remains intact at distance of 3 meters (9.7 feet) animals inside tank killed, diesel fuel set aflame.
Effect on Sherman tank: remains intact at distance 3 meters, animals inside killed.
Effect on Churchill tanks: riveted armor fails at 5 meters (15.5 feet) entire tank torn apart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airwolf said:

Hi this is about the mechanism of 250kg bombs. im disappointed on that to kill a Sherman tank then you must get a direct hit with the 250kg bomb. and if you do get a direct hit it, the easiest way to do so is to drop it 1000m and then you get killed by the blast radius. I was Reading some facts about  tank bombing and i found a axis detonation test reports.
1942 detonation tests - Udetfield Upper Silesia, north of Beuthen ( Polish spelling “Bytom“)
Targets: ten Russian T-34, one American M-4 Sherman, three British Mark IV Churchill tanks
Bombs used: SC-250
Effect on T-34: remains intact at distance of 3 meters (9.7 feet) animals inside tank killed, diesel fuel set aflame.
Effect on Sherman tank: remains intact at distance 3 meters, animals inside killed.
Effect on Churchill tanks: riveted armor fails at 5 meters (15.5 feet) entire tank torn apart

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/412962-new-he-model/?page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underpopulated side - AI MG Nest in Bunker and Spawns.

Overpopulated side - No AI MG Nest in Bunker or Spawns.

Balanced - No AI MG nest on either side in bunker or Spawns.

The SYSTEM  would add the Bunker AI MG nest at 10 seconds of Spawn delay, Spawns at 20 seconds of Spawn delay and any other Spawns at 30 seconds etc... ( each 10 seconds of spawn delay, or whatever number is deemed satisfactory)

The MG nest must remain intact if a building is blown.

The SYSTEM must call out if the AI MG has been defeated in the Spawns or bunker.

This will allow the under populated side to get out and destroy the enemy instead of guarding spawns and wasting resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shiloh17 said:

Underpopulated side - AI MG Nest in Bunker and Spawns.

You realise that if you are overpop, it takes about 5 seconds to knock out all the AI

If you are underpop, it takes about 10

All AI really does, is stop you from driving in the front door while taking a nap.

You would need to build some hellishly nasty AI to have it make a pop difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto side balancing that equals out teams.

 

Yes, there will be whiners, they should learn to play on both sides.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

Auto side balancing that equals out teams.

 

Yes, there will be whiners, they should learn to play on both sides.

Absolutely not. You do realize that there are squads involved here? People who have been playing with their squad mates for _YEARS_. Your idea of auto-balancing would automatically mess with that. It's funny how you've been advocating for player freedom, but this idea of change would be completely the opposite.

Edited by gretnine

Share this post


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

Absolutely not. You do realize that there are squads involved here? People who have been playing with their squad mates for _YEARS_. Your idea of auto-balancing would automatically mess with that. It's funny how you've been advocating for player freedom, but this idea of change would be completely the opposite.


Just drop the whole squad on other side.

 

I'm advocating for player freedom, but I also understand the game needs population balance to work correctly.  Population balance is more important than playing your 'favourite' side, because playing 30 vs 6 is just playing a broken game, which makes people quit and not play.

 

So what is better, having a 20 vs 20 and a side which you have to learn, or 30 vs 5 and having a broken game where people will leave out of frustration?

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kemiozz said:


Just drop the whole squad on other side.

I'm advocating for player freedom, but I also understand the game needs population balance to work correctly.  Population balance is more important than playing your 'favourite' side, because playing 30 vs 6 is just playing a broken game, which makes people quit and not play.

 

So what is better, having a 20 vs 20 and a side which you have to learn, or 30 vs 5 and having a broken game where people will leave out of frustration?

Yeah, because that's a solid way to auto-balance something.. What if the squad is bigger than is required to auto-balance the sides? What about High Command? Would you exclude those people from the auto-balancing?

Obviously 20 vs 20 compared to 30 vs 5 is better for everyone, but there should be -- and there are -- other methods of auto-balancing INSTEAD of forcing people to play a side just because the system wants you to.

Edited by gretnine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, gretnine said:

 What if the squad is bigger than is required to auto-balance the sides?

balance out the rest with players that are not in a squad.

A 80 vs 70  balance would be much better than   having a 100 vs 60 without balance for example.

 

' What about High Command? Would you exclude those people from the auto-balancing? '

can't comment, don't know how they work currently and how many are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' other methods of auto-balancing INSTEAD of forcing people to play a side just because the system wants you to. '

And those methods are ?

Share this post


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

' other methods of auto-balancing INSTEAD of forcing people to play a side just because the system wants you to. '

And those methods are ?

Have you bothered to read the thread at all? There are plenty of good suggestions to have better balance and not just in this specific thread. 

Share this post


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

Have you bothered to read the thread at all? There are plenty of good suggestions to have better balance and not just in this specific thread. 

Yes but they are game methods.

 

This is the most simplest and most effective method that every game that needs it uses and it works 100%.

 

Do you want sides balanced or not?  If someone wants sides balanced then auto side balance is the best option there can be.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kemiozz said:

Yes but they are game methods.

 

This is the most simplest and most effective method that every game uses and it works.

Campaigns can last months.  If every time you log in you're sent to whichever side has the least players then the game loses almost all of the point to it for a lot of the players.  

 

I play to feel like I'm in a war.  What I did last week still matters today.  The town we fought over last week still matters.  It doesn't if I'm on a different side every other time I log on.

 

I'd rather play on a side that loses map after map but at least it was my side's defeat.  

Edited by dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' Campaigns can last months.  If every time you log in you're sent to whichever side has the least players then the game loses almost all of the point to it for a lot of the players.   '

 

Make the balance for the whole campaign.  Every player that did not start to play gets assigned to a side,  the system remember the players in the pool, and if a side needs more players the new players get assigned to the side.

If a player has not logged into the battle for a week he gets removed from a side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, balancing by forcing players to play for 'the enemy' is a horrible idea.  Many of us play strictly for 1 side, and would simply log out if forced to play for 'the enemy', thus the solution would solve nothing.  Additionally, folks who continually find themselves being forced to log out due to being forced to play for 'the enemy' would be at great risk of leaving the community, causing other significant issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 6:16 AM, kemiozz said:

Just drop the whole squad on other side.

If i am trying to balance the sides, and it is TZ3 and the anzacs are having squad night, and they have 80 members on, and i pull them from allied brit, and send them all axis
Guess what i just may have done....

Yep i just made axis overpop and reversed the situation.

Dont think that idea works either.

 

The easiest answer is probably increase population, which we are trying to do

300VS200 is nothing, 400 VS 200 isnt much of a big deal
Its the low pop 7 vs 22 that is hard to work with.

And kemiozz
How about you start playing 1st, come up with ideas later?
You have 0 sorties, so you arent really helping with the underpop side situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could offer the under pop side 50% points extra per kill. They would be able to rank up faster. At least that might be tempting to lower ranking players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello folks, i decided to drop in for a while and play some WWIIOL. 

i am not a day 1 player, but i am a month one player. the game was about 2-3 weeks old when i joined. i played WWIIOL daily for 8 years before slacking off (China patch did it for me).

one thing i have never liked in the game is indicators of balance. from the balance boxes at the website to the overpopulated/requesting reinforcements indicator at the login or the spawn delays in the game. all they have ever done is put me in a defeatist mood when i see one side overpopulated.

i have always believed that a simple uninformed choice of side at the login, with the side switch delay still active, is the best way to balance the game. if people have no idea what the population is like when logging in, they will choose sides based on what they like and go in with a positive attitude that would only be effected by what they see on the map, not by some balance indicator or spawn delay.

Edited by karu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As so many others, I too was an early player - and dedicated quite a few years to WWIIOL.   I persisted thru the growth in the size of the map, the introduction of
TOEs and AO, the 'Hail Mary' introduction of the Tiger and US equipment, committed to HC (formerly known as Sprouto), formed and managed my own squad
(16ID), and saw all the good and bad that this game has to offer.   After about 7 years, it was the inability of the previous management team to deal with this very
subject (imbalance) that drove what had been a truly vibrant community, into the ground.

I've looked very hard for something to replace that, and without going into detail, I never did find anything as encompassing as this.  No shoebox game has ever
come close, and the powers that be know that I've given most of them a good shot.

With the Steam release, and an influx of potential subscribers, a number of the ugly old problems have really raised their profile and come back to haunt this
community with vigor.   It has to be addressed very quickly as the opportunity to retain these players will fade quickly.

Any solution that involves impeding a player from playing their chosen side, at any time, will not gain any favor.


The answer must come in the form of incentives, and in the use of those tools that CRS already has at their disposal.  These appear to include;

    -  tools to manage the flow of the playerbase (side to side, spawn to spawn, but may also include unit to unit to allieviate 'piling on')

    -  tools that may manage the effectiveness of AI units in range, accuracy and durability (to better deter pre-camping)

    -  tools that might alter the range or trigger level of EWS based upon population

    -  rule changes that may alter the number of units in any given town (simulating frontage) perhaps based upon # of ABs

    -  garrison supplies for un-occupied towns ( to address free capping and partly address absentee HC )


As for incentives for the players, that is somewhat more subjective, as there isn't time to come up with anything new, existing mechanisms will have to be re-
examined.   Certainly, something to do with capture timers would be dynamic and flexible and would not change the fundamentals of the game.

With regards to the hardware in the field, someone earlier in this thread made a good point about hardware that is under- utilized, on both sides, and the need to
re-assess it's place in the game, but that too might require more time than is available before this brief window of opportunity runs it's course.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 5:32 AM, karu said:

i have always believed that a simple uninformed choice of side at the login, with the side switch delay still active, is the best way to balance the game. if people have no idea what the population is like when logging in, they will choose sides based on what they like and go in with a positive attitude that would only be effected by what they see on the map, not by some balance indicator or spawn delay.

depending on timezone and overall pop, you may be right
but say a mid work week day TZ3 if the pop is very low it did not take many people to make the unbalance felt so much that no indicator was needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is:

1. Give all personas an individual score derived from:

time spent playing that persona whilst under-popped (modified by severity of imbalance) , time spent playing without switching sides in a given campaign, being squadded.

2. At any given time, server determines a mean value of all players for a side on a rolling basis, and shows higher tiered kit available only to those players above the mean value.

So, if one routinely plays during an over-pop, your access to higher tiered kit is going to be poor, even if it's  available in the spawnlist to others. The system outlined above also takes care of those who only play once "their ride"  becomes available, if they want to have access to it, then they need to put the time in with inferior kit when their side is losing the RDP battle. If they wish to play only when the higher tiered kit comes in, then they can still do so, by playing for the underpopped side, provided that they are doing so on a basis that is routine enough to put their score above the mean. If the score was persistant from one campaign to another, then this would also help combat the numeric collapse in player numbers after a series of losses, as playing for the underpopped side, regardless of when you play, would be beneficial to individual players. It would also  apply a persistent pressure to squads who routinely play  in overpop conditions to consider changing sides en masse. Because being squadded is a positive modifier for the overall score of a players persona, there is also an advantage to being squaded, provided that that modifier is not overcome by the time spent playing in overpop.

In order to circumvent the obvious dodge of someone logging in a rifleman and then going off to work, or whatever, the scoring value should be derived from each mission the persona joins, and kills or deaths achieved  - ie things you cannot do by logging onto the mission screen and then going on holidays for a week!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.