schweize

next campaign and balance

34 posts in this topic

S! Soldiers,

Now that this campaign has ended with a very well played Allied victory, will all players once again switch back Axis and have the death machine marching in the opposite direction?

I have only been back a few campaigns now and it seems to be the same thing over and over again.... Axis slaughter Allied... "Oh that was too easy I'll go allied next campaign".... Allies slaughter Axis... "Oh that was too easy I'll go back axis next campaign".....

Team balance has and continues to harm this game and I would bet my money on the majority of quitters being put down to this very issue.

--------------------------------

Has CRS ever considered a system of when a campaign starts, a player selects a side and is locked to that side in terms of receiving full access and if he so wishes to switch sides mid campaign be restricted to the "Free to play" weapons and vehicles?

This would allow players to switch back and forth but discourage switching to play on the team that is "currently" winning and the time of being online?

---------------------------------

Please do not get this confused with a rant... but merely a suggestion....

I absolutely love playing this game but It is extremely "boring" to either be on the completely dominating team or the completely dominated team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweize, I belive the problem is exactly when the person choose a side to play the whole campaign. Normally they take this decision based on the result of the last campaign, as you mentioned. Locking them away would even increase the problem, wouldn't it?

What about when intermission starts there's a popup asking which side the person will play the next campaign with a bar showing the results. Not in numbers, but in %?

That way people would know if the next campaign will be balanced or not. This would also encourage people to make a decision based on the numbers.

For example, if I see that 80% of the people are going to play as axis, I could switch to allied.

If people could change votes during the intermission I belive that this way people would look to balance the numbers.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

====

Sounds good, However People Pay Money to play anything they want. So they get what they pay for.

====

This is not true; I play to just use a schreck....... hmm, I don't get what I want, there are very few. I play to just play LMG, again, I can't cause they run out. You do not get what you want just because you pay to play. So that argument does not work.

There is no reason at all they can't say you have to pick a side for a map. What to try something else, fine, do it next map. They just are fearful for some reason to do it.

Same for FPA auto balance, if you are FPA, you shouldn't get a choice of sides to log into, you must log into the underpop side. Want to choose sides, pay up. But again, either they can't enforce it (i.e. coding reasons) or are afraid to try it.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same for FPA auto balance, if you are FPA, you shouldn't get a choice of sides to log into, you must log into the underpop side. Want to chose sides, pay up. But again, either they can't enforce it (i.e. coding reasons) or are afraid to try it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be a great use of Free accounts!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of that idea is:

- Hey mate1, theres this game, ww2ol, give it a try. Download and lets play with me. Join the axis and we go together.

- Mate2, I can't join axis, only allied, something to do with population I think.

- Ugh, I can't join allied, otherwise my squad is going to kick me.

- Lets play another game then?

- Sure, lets go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can't get everything they want for free.

I agree with delems to auto side the f2p. Perhaps new accounts can have a 1-week open or promotional trial period (with notices and urgings to subscribe) before it downgrades.

Just my dirty little ho

;-)

Edited by vonguff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see if the Tier 3 start will greatly increase allied players and result in overpop regularly being that the USA are in right away.

nice experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I'm no expert or anything, but isn't forcing your players to do something they don't want a bad way to gain new subscribers? I understand everyone's frustration but you have to realize that CRS needs more players, and forcing them to play a side they may not want is not a good way to get new players. I think the equipment restrictions we have now are a fairly good way to keep people interested in the game and willing to subscribe, without giving them too much to work with. Remember that CRS is a business, and they need to make money. Shutting a door to a whole new group of customers is a VERY VERY bad way to run a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing people to chose a side is one of the all time worst ideas.

"hang on we're massively overpop..." welcome to the rest of the map playing 'ai hunter online! with added SD'

or how about.. can't attack without losing vast amounts of towns and pop can't rebalance because the game doesn't allow it!

Seriously a majorly poor idea and it comes up every few months by someone or other .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forcing people to chose a side is one of the all time worst ideas.

"hang on we're massively overpop..." welcome to the rest of the map playing 'ai hunter online! with added SD'

or how about.. can't attack without losing vast amounts of towns and pop can't rebalance because the game doesn't allow it!

Seriously a majorly poor idea and it comes up every few months by someone or other .

Yeah, forcing me to play one side or the other is a non-starter. I would quickly end my account and I doubt I'm alone on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of movement and side play is critical to our success. It has been suggested several times over again, there's a reason we won't do it.

We can do more to combat the challenges that we face with balancing sides, but using a hammer or a pad lock would give us negative results. No one wants to be limited in what they can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, forcing me to play one side or the other is a non-starter. I would quickly end my account and I doubt I'm alone on this.

and

Forcing people to chose a side is one of the all time worst ideas.

"hang on we're massively overpop..." welcome to the rest of the map playing 'ai hunter online! with added SD'

or how about.. can't attack without losing vast amounts of towns and pop can't rebalance because the game doesn't allow it!

Seriously a majorly poor idea and it comes up every few months by someone or other .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So campaigns of total and utter domination from one side or the other is more appealing than a balanced game?

You claim many would stop paying to play if CRS tried to balance the teams pop wise, how about the amount of players who have quit or quit again after returning due to poor team balance?

Why should free users have a sense of entitlement? They play a free game, because they add to the "fun" of paying customers? What if 1000 free accounts opened up and 900 of them joined the same side...

and as for ""hang on we're massively overpop..." welcome to the rest of the map playing 'ai hunter online! with added SD'"

Could just say, hang on this team is seriously underpop, I'll go join the overpop team and chase the 3 enemy players around the huge map.

This isn't an argument of being frustrated of losing or winning, it is purely based on the lack of enjoyment from either completely dominating or being completely dominated with no middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom of movement and side play is critical to our success. It has been suggested several times over again, there's a reason we won't do it.

We can do more to combat the challenges that we face with balancing sides, but using a hammer or a pad lock would give us negative results. No one wants to be limited in what they can do.

Has there been consideration to increasing the spawn delay? If not, would there be any harm trying it for one campaign, seeing as it would only last 2 weeks at most these days......

This could perhaps encourage the casual user playing with his buddy on free accounts to perhaps switch sides as they just want to spawn in and go guns blazing.

Edited by schweize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think there's a side switching problem. almost all of our players are allied or axis for life, and would rather quit playing than switch sides.

so most players are already "side locked", heck 300s SD didn't stop it and the 1min persona delay doesn't stop it either.

at the start of the campaign sides are mostly balanced and there's a lot of AO's, but the population starts to slip and one side looses more, then a key town is gone, then one side doesn't log in.

edit:

side switching will get you booted from every squad, frequent defections will get you hated in your squads. no point in encouraging defecting...

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played Allies for years, and only tried German a few times in intermission.

If you force me to play Axis I will just stop playing

As XOOM says, its a bad idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've played Allies for years, and only tried German a few times in intermission.

If you force me to play Axis I will just stop playing

As XOOM says, its a bad idea

I was the same way, but I played Allied when it became apparent that they needed players. Played three straight campaigns Allied.

You're missing half the game if you keep thinking this way and you'll never understand your digital enemy. I'm a diehard Axis player as anyone on this forum will tell you, but I played Allied when it was needed. If you'll quit if you have to play Axis, then I don't know what to tell you.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has there been consideration to increasing the spawn delay? If not, would there be any harm trying it for one campaign, seeing as it would only last 2 weeks at most these days......

This could perhaps encourage the casual user playing with his buddy on free accounts to perhaps switch sides as they just want to spawn in and go guns blazing.

No, no, and triple no. Never bring it up again.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always have played Axis. If we lose, we lose. I just take as many Allied down with me as possible. :) The only thing I dislike about this game is being camped by enemy tanks and spawn delays. That's my two cents anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without an effective side balance solution, one should continue to expect the swings.

Just my dirty little ho

;-)

Edited by vonguff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen too many players switch mid-campaign, some players do alternate every campaign but the main cause of population disparity is players just logging off. People log off because while playing on the winning side can be boring or miserable, playing on the losing/underpop side is almost guaranteed to be that way. There's nothing to do because there's not enough population or supplies or HC, and even when the map is obviously lost HC doesn't want to do anything interesting or fun they just force stupid grinding battles.

Throwing F2P to the underpop side will make the balance worse because the underpop side will get their benefits removed and the overpop side their penalties, meanwhile the underpop will gain a mass of ineffective players. The losing team is always short of HC, people to blow FBs and people to set up attacks not headless chickens that can only spawn minimal equipment. Stacking one team with less capable or less experienced players is so obviously bad for it that I wonder how this keeps getting suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys get rid of the myth that players all switch sides every map.

The side that's losing simply has a big % of players quit the map when they're losing and that tips the numbers in favor of the side winning.

IMHO: I think the winning conditions should be met sooner, or the side winning should be able to call for the enemy's surrender.

Once you consistently lose your player base its over, and bad for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

...

IMHO: I think the winning conditions should be met sooner, or the side winning should be able to call for the enemy's surrender.

...

I would like to see the Loosing side have the opportunity to offer a surrender once some clearly defined conditions have been met in-game.

I for one, dislike the "grind" at the end of the map just to meet the victory conditions. I do feel the end of maps are not promoting the game in a good light mostly because one or the other side has effectively "thrown in the towel" and usually, on the loosing side, very bad play is common.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom of movement and side play is critical to our success.

I agree that forcing players on the side-issue is a no-no.

Still: Campaigns like the last two, where one side just pushes the other off the map due to vastly superior numbers are lethal for the game and for players' enjoyment of it. I know it frustrates me when I'm on the side that's getting seal-clubbed constantly and that it bores me to death if I'm on the side doing the clubbing.

Here's an idea:

Instead of "forcing" people to go with one side or the other, why not implement a "reward"-system for staying loyal to one side for the duration of the campaign? I think I've brought this one up numerous times in the past, but I'll gladly repeat myself.

Under a new system, nothing would change for players who still want to be able to switch sides on a daily basis.

But players who decide to stay with one side would get rewarded for their "loyalty".

First time I log into a new campaign, the game would ask me if I want to play in "normal" or "loyalty"-mode. If I choose "normal", I would get the same or similar behavior WRT side-lock/spawn delay as I do now.

But if I choose to play "loyal", my account gets locked to one side for the duration of the campaign. In return, I'd get rewards for choosing this option:

- Access to otherwise limited equipment - or even slightly earlier access to newer equipment (get Tier1-stuff one day before it gets introduced "officially").

- Reduction/removal of side-lock and/or spawn-delay

- Access to otherwise unavailable equipment for F2P-accounts (like to binoculars).

To prevent new imbalancing issues, this would probably need to be limited in some ways, meaning that only a certain percentage of the total accounts that logged in during the first week of a campaign could be set to "loyal" and that loyal-accounts on both sides would have to be in some sort of balance. Wouldn't make much sense if one side was overpop already *and* had way more accounts set to "loyal" at the same time. Kinda like the rules that we have for AOs now where *both* sides need to have a certain number of players on (not just one side) for a 2nd or 3rd AO to become available.

Of course: This wouldn't eliminate the issue of vastly imbalanced numbers, but it would:

1. Give CRS an idea of general player-balance at the start of a campaign, enabling them to implement other means of countering global imbalance.

2. Prevent (to a certain degree) the old "gotta-win" behavior (more people flocking to the side that's winning already) which usually makes it impossible to turn a campaign around once one side makes a certain amount of progress.

3. Give the underpopulated side a fighting chance if they have enough "loyal" players.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite some good ideas there Sascha.

I think the loyalty idea could work especially with the free to play accounts as they could unlock an extra 2 or 3 items they could use.

I for one believe something really has to be done to stop having constant bashing campaigns, it just makes the game unbelievable boring and makes me question whether or not it is worth paying.

Some may argue, why should I have restrictions if I pay for the product. I would like to argue, why do I have to pay for the full product if I only want to play either, Air, army or navy.

This game has always been exciting to return to and play, but that feeling of nostalgia that comes with this game is quickly thrown away when the game play is boring due to an imbalance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.