BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

288 posts in this topic

Again I would like to suggest just releasing the tiers at different times based on who owns what amount of the map.  If allies own 3/4 allow axis to have access to next tier for a few days.  It would be fun for the losing team for awhile and maybe bring back population.  Also it wouldn’t be horribly historical inaccurate, often upgrades were made leaving the other side to scramble to meet the increase in technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what might be better, is for greentags to be automatically compelled to spawn in at missions as directed by HC, for a couple of weeks or so, and likewise compelled to despawn once HC so directs. These "training wheels" could come off after a couple of weeks, or, the player could opt in and out of such directed spawnage. It'd save a lot of the steamers from running about chasing the tumbleweed in towns long-since deserted by everyone else.... They could also be given specific tasks perhaps....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 11:59 PM, fidd said:

Actually, what might be better, is for greentags to be automatically compelled to spawn in at missions as directed by HC, for a couple of weeks or so, and likewise compelled to despawn once HC so directs. These "training wheels" could come off after a couple of weeks, or, the player could opt in and out of such directed spawnage. It'd save a lot of the steamers from running about chasing the tumbleweed in towns long-since deserted by everyone else.... They could also be given specific tasks perhaps....

Seems like a lot to ask of HC given their current game management responsibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 9:04 PM, budder8820 said:

I think adding better AI that can actually move around would help balance issues. Have them spawn and defend the town.

AI is lame enough as it is, and should only really be ATGs and AA.

The pits and towers are lazor and shoot through trees and berms.

So stupid.

 

Also, they confuse new players that think they're being shot at by actual players.

They need to be marked more clearly on the map as well. When you zoom in and see what might be a box.. it's actually a tower and it kills you.

Can I also make mention of the "lay down at the base, repair AI tower and keep repairing it as soon as it gets blown up. Rinse lather repeat" tactic?

 

That's good gameplay?

 

Since when?

Never. That was rhetorical.

 

It'd be better to have PPO AI pits or towers instead, cool down timers effective and only in sandbag wall emplacements after they've been built.

Towers... players can't even use them, and yet here they are mowing down everyone out to 400M.

Through trees. 

Through windows? 

Through walls or berms?

 

Beh.

Movable AI?

I don't agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 9:04 PM, budder8820 said:

I think adding better AI that can actually move around would help balance issues. Have them spawn and defend the town.

I doubt you would see the rats enhance AI  beyond its rudimentary abilities.
Its only purpose to slow down a grand theft auto approach to a town  or provide the AAA and coastal defense batteries that would exist but would entail hours and hours
of sitting doing nothing for the players.

I doubt there would be much interest from the playerbase or from the rats in enhancing AI any more.

 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a rabbit hole topic overall. There is no such thing as game balance, but a topic that will exist with as many opinions as there are people playing the game. So in that reality, it will never be achieved. In the early years the Axis were continually out manned by the Allied side. Our main battle tank was the PzIII so we were totally outclassed in tanks and our best ATG was the 37mm. Yet we consistently took maps. Why?? Because we balanced the field by cooperation amongst the squads. All the manipulations towards 'game balance', IMHO, have done nothing but bork the game to the point where you now 'warp' into a CP??? What original realism we had was lost, the cooperation was lost. Now there is the beginning complaints about how short the campaigns are. I'd completely forgotten about Campaign 37, the 61 day campaign that ended in a truce until I saw B2K's post about awards. We've gotten to this point, again IMHO, because of the wrong headed idea about game balance. We worked with the tools we had, and had a huge amount of fun doing it. I'm guilty of a nostalgic point of view as the old game 'balance' came down to nothing more than tactics and strategies. Want game balance?? restore the game to pre-MS, HC, AO/DO, EWS and let the creative juices flow as to how you can move the map. I can't help but wonder what the game would be like without these things but with the equipment available to us. 

zimm out

Edited by zimmer
needed comma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 7:22 AM, zimmer said:

Here is a rabbit hole topic overall. There is no such thing as game balance, but a topic that will exist with as many opinions as there are people playing the game. So in that reality, it will never be achieved. In the early years the Axis were continually out manned by the Allied side. Our main battle tank was the PzIII so we were totally outclassed in tanks and our best ATG was the 37mm. Yet we consistently took maps. Why?? Because we balanced the field by cooperation amongst the squads. All the manipulations towards 'game balance', IMHO, have done nothing but bork the game to the point where you now 'warp' into a CP??? What original realism we had was lost, the cooperation was lost. Now there is the beginning complaints about how short the campaigns are. I'd completely forgotten about Campaign 37, the 61 day campaign that ended in a truce until I saw B2K's post about awards. We've gotten to this point, again IMHO, because of the wrong headed idea about game balance. We worked with the tools we had, and had a huge amount of fun doing it. I'm guilty of a nostalgic point of view as the old game 'balance' came down to nothing more than tactics and strategies. Want game balance?? restore the game to pre-MS, HC, AO/DO, EWS and let the creative juices flow as to how you can move the map. I can't help but wonder what the game would be like without these things but with the equipment available to us. 

zimm out

lolol.  I love the old 'we were better' line of reasoning.  I seem to recall 1 opel 1INF map runs in your 'early days', and when that ceased to be effective/allowed you had to depend on stukas that could go air to air (while loaded no less), superior numbers in off-American hours, and so on.  Perhaps you forgot about the .88 in your 'we did not have good atg' lament.

 

Having said that, I have been against game balancing from the beginning.  Proper equipment modeling, in relatively historical numbers/ratios, would do the trick imho.  And I agree----warping into a CP is complete crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in the ”it’s the natural order” camp. I enjoy playing under any population circumstance and attach no value whatsoever to town win/loss or map win/loss. This does not inhibit me from fighting as best I can. Ask yourself, what actually do you win/lose? Do you lose esteem after 15 consecutive town/map losses (or deaths) and if so, why and in whose eyes? 

Perhaps the game needs more, or more segmented, objectives, besides more people, more gear and a lot more terrain (more terrain = longer campaigns, more strategic options, more opportunity for pop shifts).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:15 AM, augetout said:

lolol.  I love the old 'we were better' line of reasoning.  I seem to recall 1 opel 1INF map runs in your 'early days', and when that ceased to be effective/allowed you had to depend on stukas that could go air to air (while loaded no less), superior numbers in off-American hours, and so on.  Perhaps you forgot about the .88 in your 'we did not have good atg' lament.

 

Having said that, I have been against game balancing from the beginning.  Proper equipment modeling, in relatively historical numbers/ratios, would do the trick imho.  And I agree----warping into a CP is complete crap.

Like the majority of viewpoints, mine is the only one I have. We all see things through our own perspectives. I don't know what you mean about the stukas, never saw one in a dogfignt, unless he was running, if that is what you meant. The 88 was not present in the early years. When the 88 first came out I towed a squad mate and we stopped on a road so he could shoot at a strafing EA....1 shot, 1 kill....but this fella was a natural with whatever he was shooting with. The game in the time frame(s) I allude to is not the same game we have today. They are as different as a flat chess board to a 3d chess game. There is no way to explain the difference and make someone understand.

zimm out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The 88 was not present in the early years."----Zimmer

 

I was a day 1 patch download, (thus technically a day 2 player), and I cannot for the life of me remember the 88 not being ingame.  I do remember 31st Wrecking Crew, Windhund, and 1st Totenkopfs (whoever it was) lining those 88s up hulldown on hills and just laying waste to whatever spawned.  Kinda glad they have forgotten how to do that...

I do agree the game is different, in that it is (at least in the early stages of a campaign) much closer to what I imagine CRS' original vision to be.  Perhaps to the delays involved in the game arriving at this point, it seems unit cohesion is almost nonexistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:02 AM, augetout said:

"The 88 was not present in the early years."----Zimmer

 

I was a day 1 patch download, (thus technically a day 2 player), and I cannot for the life of me remember the 88 not being ingame.  I do remember 31st Wrecking Crew, Windhund, and 1st Totenkopfs (whoever it was) lining those 88s up hulldown on hills and just laying waste to whatever spawned.  Kinda glad they have forgotten how to do that...

I do agree the game is different, in that it is (at least in the early stages of a campaign) much closer to what I imagine CRS' original vision to be.  Perhaps to the delays involved in the game arriving at this point, it seems unit cohesion is almost nonexistent.  

I would be interested as to exactly when the 88 came into play as we both have different rememberances of the event. Hopefully CRS would have a record of it so we could both know the reality of it.

But with the addition of bending the game out of perspective and originality, we need a motor on the 88 so we can get it into use more often.S!

zimm out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it was in from day 1. And don't disrespect the historically accurate manoevrability of the unladen Stuka. It's very good against the unbeknownst and the overconfident, not so much against vets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 9:54 AM, bmbm said:

Pretty sure it was in from day 1. And don't disrespect the historically accurate manoevrability of the unladen Stuka. It's very good against the unbeknownst and the overconfident, not so much against vets.

Agreed.  I was referring to the laden variety of Stukas in the early days----why am I suddenly thinking of Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'??

 

Thanks, Saronin, for the timeline on the arrival of the .88----perhaps me not playing the german side clouds my memory----or perhaps it was all those times my poor little R35 would spend 1/2 hour puttering off-road, only to get waxed by one of those damn things.  June to October surely flew by back then.

 

For the record, Zimmer, there were a lot of really well-run german units back in the day, and if memory serves a few (less) well-run Allied units, (and yes that was ever so slightly painful to admit).  It pains me more to see less of that now.  It seems that the game has always depended on players to organize ourselves, whether in squads/units or at the high command levels.  I mean no disrespect---it is a decision I agreed whole heartedly with at the time, and would again, if conditions allowed.  In year 16, though, that core of dedicated players is a shell of its former glory.  I see some of the original folks---BMBM, for example, but even amongst the vets, most are not part of that original core.  Without that dedicated playerbase, I worry that whatever CRS' current lineup comes up with will be doomed to mediocrity at best, as the game needs all of the new things---and the optimistic players who are willing/able to do all of the community things that the rest of the game depends on (and had back in the day).  I am not busting on the non-day 1 folks---I wish to be clear about that.  Not noticing, though, that they are a wholly different bunch than the 'originals', does us all a disservice.

Edited by augetout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the overpop side is generally attacking (and rolling the map) how about scrapping the spawn delay

and replace it with squad level missions that need to be filled before they spawn, this way people aren't just sitting idle when they are overpop, but still throttles the rate at which they re-enter the game and allows players to communicate and plan while waiting for enough players to join a mission, possibly encouraging more coherent and realistic attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do I wish to bash or disrespect the newer players. They are the new generation with a different mind set etc. Our youngest unofficial squad mate was 5 yrs old sitting on his dad's lap and the youngest official member was 13. We vets took turns ensuring that his homework was done before playing. :) Coming into a squad, for older and younger players was an experience of inclusion. Inclusion was the specialty of the game to ensure success as a squad. The squad run game, more so then than now, allowed the introduction of the new players to the game that was more player run/based.

I have to ask: What experience do people expect when they go to different games?? I was thrilled that finally there was a game based on WWII. Our fathers' war. That meant, IMHO, that it wasn't a glitzy first person shootem up. What was there was basically what the folks were seeking..........originality. To experience something that other MMOs, MMORPGs etc didn't really have and could not give. I left the game quite a few times as the changes were going too far, but I always came back for my squad.

True, early victories were many. But when the Allies decided to play together, it was a different story. Balance was restored and we either lost or had one heck of a lot of fun in the intense battles.

Kindest Regards,

zimm out

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimmer, I've had limited experience in other gaming communities----wwiionline was the first one I joined and perhaps the most important to my views on how things should work.  Having said that, and knowing it is anecdotal evidence, I had some friends who were really into a couple of the bigger mmorpg deals, (star wars online, and warcraft).  Their experiences were horrible unless (or until) they hooked up with a group of veterans who helped them along the way.  1 small example:  A week before the 'Leroy Jenkins' youtube sensation, a friend of mine, (new to the game), was tormented for over an hour by veteran 'magic users', who beat him with fishing poles, and (magically I presume) dunked him in a lake, over and over.  Pretty horrible, and if we in this community did anything remotely close to that we'd be lambasted.  The Warcraft crowd, though, is a different bunch, and for them this sort of thing is not only accepted, but expected.

 

I believe we are in agreement:  The squads were (and should be again) the key to this game community.  Well-run squads support the HC structure, which was designed, (if memory serves), assuming squad support.  Well-run squads help new players acclimate quickly to the relatively steep learning curve that is wwiionline.  Well-run squads provide activity in the forums, which also breeds other activity.  Well-run squads make the battles more cohesive/organized, and thus more fun for the players involved.  The HC structure cannot thrive in an environment where well-run squads are so few and far between.  I see Windhund, a unit that my old unit (Lafayette Federation) fought against on many occasions, has less than 10 members?!?  1st Totenkopfs (unfortunate name) have disappeared.  31st Wrecking Crew has too as far as I can tell.  Long story ever so shortened, the game needs squads to return to the forefront.  It won't fix balancing issues, but it will fix a bunch of other issues, because the balancing issues are a symptom, not a root cause problem.  Well-run squads will move balancing issues out of the forefront, and we'll go back to debating whether the germans should get the IIIH so damned early in the game, lol.

 

S! and best regards.

Edited by augetout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Idea for pululation imbalance is.

All the f2p Player on the underpop Side, have free Access to the Panhard / DAC and the PzII and maby on the first ATG and the small AA gun.

(This Feature starts only if the SD is by 20 Seconds)

If we can do this, i think  many F2P chance then the Side.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I would like to suggest just releasing the tiers at different times based on who owns what amount of the map.  If allies own 3/4 allow axis to have access to next tier for a few days.  It would be fun for the losing team for awhile and maybe bring back population.  Also it wouldn’t be horribly historical inaccurate, often upgrades were made leaving the other side to scramble to meet the increase in technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a now F2P and former long-term premium (different name) subscriber, I can tell you that I quit my subscription for a couple of reasons - but mainly because the side imbalance made the game less fun, and since I didn't have a lot of time to play, I felt it wasn't worth the effort. I don't play much anymore but spawn in on the underpop side. I've read through the suggestions and like the idea of improved (more accurate, more aware of EI) AI for the underpop. This would only be possible in an overpop situation in which an AO was placed on the ungarrisoned town. I think the HC for the underpop should be able to determine which of their ungarrisoned towns they consider to be most strategic and use some of their supply to beef up the AI in those towns as well as being able to place the additional AI for better tactical use.  The attacking side would not know if the town was fortified until they scouted it. These AI would vanish as the town gained a brigade for defense or as soon as the overpop was balanced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.  I kinda like the idea of players paying to play a side, and paying more to play both sides.

 

I remember my first wife (yes, my interest in this game outlasted an entire marriage) even joked one time that I was 'getting ripped off' because I was paying for a whole game but only playing half of it.  Perhaps she was wise...lol  (back when I was paying, that is---------and I'll pay again, soon I hope).

Edited by augetout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that there can be an overwhelming remedy to really reduce the imbalance. But we can try... At least to make experiments.
Seems, that most possible ways are already stated several times. IMO, maybe key is in a percentage of "possible ingredients".

Sadly i myself currently don't play, therefore that would be more as a theoretical suggestion.

I would suggest to remove visual indicator of imbalance from the game. Isn't secret that for not so a few people take such indicator as a call to join with "victorious side".

Secondly. I would suggest to predetermine F2P as part of "the underpopulated side". They can not choose a side and must fight for the side that the system predetermines. Yes, that means, they can't be members of players-created squads.
At same time, to compete with mature players who pays, they need better than now weapons (to be really a balancing power). I would suggest to give 'em access to rifle, SMG, semi-auto and LMG (that's only example). (Of course, then is needed to reconsider of "Starter" account).

Thirdly. It is understandable, that people, who were forced to fight on the side they do not prefer, might be less productive, less motivated etc.
Therefore i suggest to regard that sides as balanced, then when side, where fights most of those F2P players (directed on this side by order), is on 5 percent bigger than opposite side. This might to seem technically a nightmare, but i guess it might be solved.

What about realism, then, if someone thinks that all people in the second world war (and in other wars) fought on their side according to their desire and choice, then they are deeply mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like the idea of under pop side getting access to new tier but how about one or both of the following:

1. Temporary access to a single uber brigade similar to an air force or navy unit that can be deployed anywhere. It would have some next tier equipment to be deployed alongside main brigades 

2. Special forces unit:

- lower ews range

- lower ao timer

- lower movement timers

- faster fru setup

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.