BADGER

Ideas for Fixing Balance

212 posts in this topic

On 2017-10-29 at 6:42 PM, fidd said:

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!

This. Was thinking the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, this is something we've been talking about with my squadmates recently. I enjoy playing on the underdog side, but one of my guys told me that a developer-related person mentioned that the population difference was 5 to 1 between the Germans and the Allies this campaign. That's a little much. I think there should indeed be side-locking. In fact, I think that unless you're playing in a squad, the server should automatically assign you to the side that needs players. By "playing in a squad," I mean you need to have a special invitation from the leader of that squad with some sort of code--proof that you're actually participating and not just clicking a prompt that asks you "which squad would you like to join?" There are too many people running around in "squads" that don't even know how to use the F3 chat.

Once you've been assigned, you stay there until the campaign is over. This would encourage people to play in active squads if they want to choose a specific side. If they don't care, the server will just do the work for them.

WW2OL isn't like other games in this respect. It has a campaign which can last several months. It's not a simple battle like Verdun or Heroes and Generals, where having an imbalance is a temporary thing. Imbalances in this game last months, and it gets tiring when despite well-organized efforts by your team, you just get rolled and rolled and rolled, and four to five Panzer IVs are just driving nonchalantly into your army bases, every time. There's a problem there.

The customer argument is a valid one, but I should add that customers should find the game enjoyable, too. If letting certain customers choose their side makes other customers unhappy, what is the benefit? I think it's better to have players know how the game actually works, how it is a long-term process and simulator, and how important balance is to having that simulator do its job of recreating the war. This could be part of WW2OL's branding, since it would be one of the only games where choosing a side actually matters in the long-term scheme of things. There are loyalty and friendship factors involved in the squads.

Also, it may be fun to just continually win as the Germans, but eventually, after you do 10 campaigns and the outcome is the same--you win every time--it will get boring. That will draw customers away as well. It won't be WW2OL anymore, but rather "German Victory Simulator."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Augetout's method of having players pay more to play both sides sounds like a good choice, too. Or even better: measure the amount of paying players on each side and make sure THAT it as even as possible. After all, free-to-play players don't really stay unless they're tutored, and they don't have a great effect on the campaign in the long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 1:42 PM, fidd said:

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!

The most assured way for a side to win in the current game is to have a preponderance of skilled, highly coordinated infantrymen armed with rifles, SMGs, hand grenades and LMGs...and all of these are T0 weapons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO unbalance isn't a bad experience as long as 
1. Action is centered on areas where underpoped side gathered
2. (Defense) low pop manage to set up defensive positions or (attack) low pop keep its ability to quickly reach the target area
3. A battle loss doesn’t impact the global victory conditions as hard as it might be in a balanced situation

The more unbalance, the more concentrate the action area should be.

Our gameplay design should just somehow guarantee a balance of unbalances.

Share this post


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

IMO unbalance isn't a bad experience as long as 
1. Action is centered on areas where underpoped side gathered
2. (Defense) low pop manage to set up defensive positions or (attack) low pop keep its ability to quickly reach the target area
3. A battle loss doesn’t impact the global victory conditions as hard as it might be in a balanced situation

The more unbalance, the more concentrate the action area should be.

Our gameplay design should just somehow guarantee a balance of unbalances.

Right, the fix will be worse then the problem, as it would either bar entry to a battle area, create barriers that break illusion, and/or put the game on rails moreso then the spawn castle node capture paradigm already does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kilemall I am stating principles in opposition to a situation where you would let overpop walk through the map without resistance. Or maybe we don’t have the same definition of fun but I would definitely prefer a temporary stronger funnelling of the game when heavy unbalance happens, but make it even less restricted when balance conditions are met in order to take full benefits of a large open map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Right, the fix will be worse then the problem, as it would either bar entry to a battle area, create barriers that break illusion, and/or put the game on rails moreso then the spawn castle node capture paradigm already does.

I see continuing allowed imbalance as a mortal threat to CRS's subscriber numbers and therefore business survival.

How would the three mechanics-approaches you list, or another of the more or less drastic solutions put forth so far, be worse than CRS going out of business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 9:50 PM, jwilly said:

I see continuing allowed imbalance as a mortal threat to CRS's subscriber numbers and therefore business survival.

How would the three mechanics-approaches you list, or another of the more or less drastic solutions put forth so far, be worse than CRS going out of business?

Is it like you haven't read a damn thing I've written over the past 10 years?

Zeb I understand, but I would expect you know better then that.

 

I was agreeing with his principles, but stating additional principles that whatever the fix is cannot use 'action defined on rails' and destroy player agency even more then it already has been.

 

Part of why my fixes concentrate on a proper mix of AOs and timers that may annoy but not destroy cohesion or ability to spawn and maneuver, and why I step back and look at fundamentals of the game as evolved such as Nodal Spawn Castle and attrition and player preferences that are diametrically opposed and try to figure a fair meeting ground to continue to create the combat biome we all want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I was agreeing with his principles, but stating additional principles that whatever the fix is cannot use 'action defined on rails' and destroy player agency even more then it already has been.

A fix... any fix... could not be worse than the problem.

Quote

I see continuing allowed imbalance as a mortal threat to CRS's subscriber numbers and therefore business survival.

Any change that keeps CRS in business...even one that uses "action defined on rails"...would be better than having CRS go out of business.

The salient characteristic of a successful fix will not be that it provides a degree of "player agency" that any of us like. It will be that CRS sees increased revenue and subscriber numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jwilly said:

A fix... any fix... could not be worse than the problem.

Any change that keeps CRS in business...even one that uses "action defined on rails"...would be better than having CRS go out of business.

The salient characteristic of a successful fix will not be that it provides a degree of "player agency" that any of us like. It will be that CRS sees increased revenue and subscriber numbers.

I disagree.

 

You don't have player agency, you throw away CRS' defining market differentiation.

 

Going hardcore to the point of losing customers over what I call the 'lizard' approach rather then the 'mammal' approach (drop eggs then walk away letting new players fend for themselves vs. nurturing new players for higher retention rates) is definitely an area I have been on about for a long time.  That's a business approach that borders on suicidal that needs changing.

 

But lack of freedom on where to spawn and travel, more restrictive capture/spawn mechanisms- that throws away the 'your war' and all that wonderful contiguous terrain that is a unique feature set of this game.  I would seek to expand on the strengths, not make it another arena clone of other companies that won that WWII shooter market share a long time ago and not giving it up to a no-PR buck operation on the margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:58 PM, Kilemall said:

I disagree.

 

You don't have player agency, you throw away CRS' defining market differentiation.

 

Going hardcore to the point of losing customers over what I call the 'lizard' approach rather then the 'mammal' approach (drop eggs then walk away letting new players fend for themselves vs. nurturing new players for higher retention rates) is definitely an area I have been on about for a long time.  That's a business approach that borders on suicidal that needs changing.

 

But lack of freedom on where to spawn and travel, more restrictive capture/spawn mechanisms- that throws away the 'your war' and all that wonderful contiguous terrain that is a unique feature set of this game.  I would seek to expand on the strengths, not make it another arena clone of other companies that won that WWII shooter market share a long time ago and not giving it up to a no-PR buck operation on the margins.

Yep!

Obviously we wish CRS to survive, but we want this game to survive as well. 

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.