VICTARUS

Population Imbalance & Goals

111 posts in this topic

Option #1 will just make overpop side rage quit and never come back
Option #2 is better
in addition, the CP capture time, reset time and AI bot for underpop side help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, capco said:

This isn't just true in WWII games.  It's true in any game with any semblance of good vs evil.  My opinion is that most people are good, or at least taught to be good, so that when they get a virtual chance to be the bad guy, many take it.  

This was true in EQ PVP.  This was true in Star Wars Galaxies.  This was true with the Horde and the Alliance in WoW PVP, until the Alliance was perceived to be the real bad guys and the population levels swapped (or at least so I'm told; never played WoW but have many friends who do).  This was true in Planetside 2 (the "good guy" Blue team was always the most underpopulated).  Hell, even when I did Civil War reenacting, the South had so many more reenacters than the North that they had to give a company of rifelmen to the North to make the show somewhat realistic.

And yet some people here want to claim that the sides are both relatively balanced pop-wise when game history doesn't show that.

probably more aesthetics and personal taste, good guys are modeled smooth vanilla style and iEnvironment-like (imagine a room made by apple) with a soft tint, whereas bad guys stuff is raw metal with detailed craftsmanship ugly and functional.

 

deathstars vs EP1 yellow fighters is a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, nh3rd said:

The best solution is the one that doesn't force the hand of the player or restrict as it were. While it should be automatic that the underpop side be defense oriented when that imbalance starts to swing to triggering spawn delay some mechanisms may need to kick in.

 

Completely, utterly disagree.  Months or years of having to be the defense TZ drives off players, contributes to the cycle of suck, and really is cheating the people of a particular TZ out of half the game, offense for the underpop and defense for the overpop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pittpete said:

 What kind of gameplay would make 2v1 "work" for you?

Exactly what David said

 

And exactly the sort of thing that contributes to the cycle of suck.

Share this post


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

Actually, the real issue here isn't an imbalanced population. The issue is an inconsistent population.

Whether you believe it or not, player numbers tend to be fairly balanced overall: Both sides will occasionally have a few hours where they have a slight-but-not-massive edge, but that advantage tends to fluctuate between sides from day-to-day and it tends to not be that large. The issue is when severe imbalances start — usually one side having a sudden downward spike in population mid-day while the other side's numbers are still growing normally — and the ensuing death spiral that can cause to the losing side because our underpop gameplay simply isn't fun.

The population balance not being 1-1 isn't an issue: If one side was outnumbered 2-1 every campaign we could design with that in mind, problem solved. The population balance not being absolutely fixed also isn't a problem either since these imbalances tend to be temporary, fairly minor, and regularly go both ways. The problem is when that minor temporary imbalance turns into a massive long-term one because being on the underpop side sucks so much that players stop playing.

Pop neutrality or bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting one side to bolt rifles certainly does not make any sense at this point-- i would start by at least making the current weapons be used as they were intended- the LMG is a crewed support weapon, not an assault rifle-- return it to its role-- no more running and firing from the hip.  Nothing more frustrating than defending a cp and having LMG after LMG run in firing away-- that is the role of the SMG.

 

Share this post


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

And exactly the sort of thing that contributes to the cycle of suck.

Did you actually read what he had to say?

Your pop neutrality thread is how many years old?

You remind me of one of those snake oil salesman that has the cure for everything.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The battle-mechanics problem in my view is that defenders arrive at the battle in response to the attacker, i.e. the "attacker" is there first and has the battlefield covered and maybe even camped, and therefore in fact is the defender, and the "defender" has to attack to try to capture their own territory. 

So define a start line for attacks. Zero enemy units are permitted to cross that line until say ten minutes after an AO has been placed. This allows time for the defenders to get in place to actually defend. 

So as to avoid the attacker stalling until the defender-players start to leave, the AO would expire in say two minutes. Thus, attacking players would know they had to be ready to go on time, and so would defenders.

Perhaps some kind of preset-system for defensive works could be created. Each side could create some number of arrays of defensive objects around each game-map city and the area to its rear. Upon an AO being set, the defending commander for that area would select a defensive array for the battle--ideally one that the other side hadn't seen yet--and it'd pop into place. Thus arriving defender-units would only have to spawn guns and place them, and maybe do small amounts of customization in the limited available time.

The number of attackers permitted to cross the start line or re-spawn inside it would be dynamically related to the number of defenders present. The attacker:defender ratio would be CRS set of course, and would take into account the mix of combat power multipliers available to the defenders and sometimes the attackers. So as to disallow the defender from "defending" by just not showing up, the minimum number of attackers would be great enough to capture.

That'd mean that the side with more defending battles would have considerably fewer players involved. There'd be no reason why the underpop side couldn't place its own AO(s). In each such instance, the number of attackers would be ratioed to the number of defenders just as for the overpop side. AOs placed by the underpop side perhaps could have greater access to their own combat force multipliers, and the player ratio might be more favorable for them.

 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we want the underpop side to do something.

- Lets make them have fun and make them be able to delay the overpop side advance by fighting.

Have you ever play the Omaha map at Day of Defeat??

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

Lets make a new depot called "Advanced Depot"  AD

It would be placed between Def Town and FB.

 

Town (Allied) ----- AD ------ FB -----------------------------------------(FB) ---------------- Town (axis)

 

- This AD has its own Pool like a normal depot.  Some rifles, lmgs, light Ats and Light AAs.  This pool is independent from the town. 

- Until this advanced depot is not conquered, Attack mission that target the Town can not be set. No FMSs to town -> We avoid the Precamp situation at the town.

- Now the funny part. This AD has one only entrance to the compound that can not be blown  up until XX minutes after Ao is set.

- This door, onced broken, can not be trespassed by Ets.

advanced_depot.jpg

 


- Main thing is that, defenders, they are going to be probably finished but they will have lots of fun. 

- Doesn't matter if they are camped or precamped. Mate it is an "Omaha" situation!!!

- Because the pool of this AD is independent from town, defenders won't miss losing this pool.

- Attackers WILL be losing pool, so By killing as much attackers as possible, defenders feel they are doing something useful.

- You provide time for the rest of the defenders to set a nice def at the main town.

- Combined action for attackers. Imagine Heavy guns, AAs, mortars and aviation, working together to get this place.

 

Contras.

Paras rol here. 

Maybe no doable now. You would need to maybe get the Fbs a little bit far away from towns so you can place the AD in between Town and present Fb.

This extra distance should not need to be too much. AD and FBs could be close enough like  front lines in real live, the defenders won't be able to spawn Tanks or heavy ATs and Ats won't be able to leave the compound so it doesn't matter if the AD is 1km away from Fb.

This extra distance from town to fb now it is not as importatn than before, maybe just 2 more minutes driving but the FMS they last longer than the previous MS so no need to keep driving new ones.

 

Option 2

If you don't want / can't mess with FBs, you can place those Facilities at Bottle Necks places, Bridges, Roads, etc. but again with the same rules:

-  when you place an Ao on them, attackers need to wait some minutes to be able to destroy the door and get inside.

- Ad pool independent from towns. The more the Defenders kill the better

 

Edited by piska250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think about what I find really disheartening when underpop, it's not necessarily being overrun and losing 

It is

- that desperate feeling that the entire front is overwhelmed; it's not just your town in the toilet, it's 1 or 2 other towns also being overwhelmed 

- being camp-killed in the spawn building 

- not being able to make it to the CP, getting cut down within 5/10 seconds of spawning in

- having no ability to make a meaningful attack in order to shift the defeatist mentality. Even if you drive a truck, plant a FRU, get into town and cap a CP, you know that the CP will be recapped without your underpop attack changing a single thing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The actual problem here is how do we make it so the game still "works" when the population is imbalanced for those temporary stretches

 

Share this post


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

Did you actually read what he had to say?

Your pop neutrality thread is how many years old?

You remind me of one of those snake oil salesman that has the cure for everything.

 

I certainly did read it, particularly the line about how people just have to suck it up if they are underpopped and play defense.

 

It's an arrogant attitude and it sucks, its about the IWin button when large groups log in, and damn straight I will speak against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the best time of my life in 2007 when allied waa always underpop in EU tz and everyone was focused on defending. Even EU allied HC like me would be specialized in defensive brigade moving.

Then you had US tz with HC that were skilled in using the overpop to the maximum potential. 

If i wanted to attack I would stay on till 0200. Sure you would think always defending sucks but being able to stop axis attacks was greatly rewarding as you knew US tz would take 3 towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep this discussion focused on solutions. Name calling, or one liners that are unproductive should be tossed to the side as a distraction.

Victarus is going the extra mile here to get the community included and part of the game's future.

I see a lot of posts wasting a golden opportunity. Put some thought into it and respond constructively please.

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I certainly did read it, particularly the line about how people just have to suck it up if they are underpopped and play defense.

 

It's an arrogant attitude and it sucks, its about the IWin button when large groups log in, and damn straight I will speak against it.

Even you seem to be confused.

Not once do i see where he said that.

Quote

Let them be able to spawn where they want and go do what they want.

Quote

Mole ops, diversionary AOs, FB assaults and even some aggressive softcapping were all viable strategies when a side was underpop.

CRS has said that it wants to get back to focusing on squads. If squads become large groups again it should be a positive. You seem to be so scared of large groups because you'll no longer have control over them and their squad leaders. If low pop organized itself and communicated better there would be less reliance on CRS to fix it for them. Perhaps more people stay logged if they're part of a large group instead of a bunch of individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

The playerbase wants to be entertained, when they are having fun they stay when they don't they leave. Winners keep rolling the map while the losers simply rage quit. What you have now is MoiC's who many times don't even have a clue on how to run the map yet alone give entertainment value to the playerbase. They don't work with players or squads in new AO's they lay AO's without FRU's up hell I've seen alot of times AO's left up for HOURS on END with no FB to it and you expect people to be entertained?

The simple solution is to give what players want when they log in and that is entertainment. This game goes against all traditional games mostly where you have to sacrifice your time and be patient to be rewarded and in the gaming industry currently people are not patient nor do they want to put in the hard work doing the dirty jobs that need to be done to win. If pop is a problem it's easily solved with savvy players knowing how to stop the overpop sides momentum. Go blow the FB to their P1, guard multiple caps at once by running to each one checking it and clearing them out, do a mole op on a town to pull attackers back on defense. There are many solutions to the problem but people need to put in the effort.

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been discussions over the years of the various psychological frameworks of CRS's customer types, and how that necessarily drives design.

Defenders don't always lose, but with the present game mechanics, a substantially underpop side loses much more than it wins.  Customers that are motivated by personal victories...kills, prevailing in 1v1 tactical situations, captures...are able to enjoy being on the losing side. Customers that are motivated by side victories can't enjoy losing. The latter customers have to be provided game mechanics that create 1:1 odds of an underpop defender winning enough battles to win the campaign.

We were told various things back in the days of the beta/design forum, but never what the ratio was of customer types. I expect that CRS knows that number well. If the side-victory-motivated customer type is numerous, CRS can't solve the problem with "fixes" that mostly address the game enjoyment of the personal-victory-motivated customer type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2016 at 10:28 AM, Pittpete said:

Victarus isnt asking for ideas on how to balance.

He's asking what would you like to be able to still do while being outnumbered or overpop.:huh:

Exactly the wrong approach.

 

Underpop should not be denied the ability to attack by game mechanics of pop spawning and capture.  Period.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Even you seem to be confused.Not once do i see where he said that.

He didn't say it directly, but certainly indirectly.  By allowing 'attack anywhere' which let's face it is code for eliminating AOs, that puts the overpop so infinitely in the driver's seat it would make the first two years look like patty cake.

Quote

CRS has said that it wants to get back to focusing on squads. If squads become large groups again it should be a positive. You seem to be so scared of large groups because you'll no longer have control over them and their squad leaders. If low pop organized itself and communicated better there would be less reliance on CRS to fix it for them. Perhaps more people stay logged if they're part of a large group instead of a bunch of individuals.

You have a habit of assuming what my or any of the HC motivations are, and I ask you to stop mischaracterizing my motivations or any of my comrades. 

 

I am not scared of large groups out of HC control in this context, I am when the game does not balance population effects.  Which is the topic of conversation of this thread and HIGHLY relevant.

 

I AM concerned that we will go straight back to Tribal Raiders of France, and once again we will devolve back to who can put the biggest squads on the longest to overrun relatively underpop people, or more of the same TZ3 shenanigans.  I want to play in a war, not a squad egofest. 

 

If there was a large squad on lowpop- wait there was, the ANZACS and associated squads.  But they aren't there anymore, and in large measure because of the lack of development for command tools or even variability in lowpop play for several years.  I daresay Allies won a lot of campaigns on their backs, same as Axis do more often nowadays.

 

So this isn't a side issue per se, it's a deep design issue, and will still apply even if all vestiges of HC and AOs were swept away- even more so then now or 1.36.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, monsjoex said:

I had the best time of my life in 2007 when allied waa always underpop in EU tz and everyone was focused on defending. Even EU allied HC like me would be specialized in defensive brigade moving.

Then you had US tz with HC that were skilled in using the overpop to the maximum potential. 

If i wanted to attack I would stay on till 0200. Sure you would think always defending sucks but being able to stop axis attacks was greatly rewarding as you knew US tz would take 3 towns.

Same here. The game soared with the Allies holding off organised attacks with organised defence. 

 

What's always been missing is any recognition from CRS that the key element is 'ORGANISED'. If players, squads and HC had effective organisational tools, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this discussion because the game finds it's top gear when organisation happens 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing we can do is already in game.  I helped take a town(with a flag) yesterday  without a shot fired .  Every town has to have a minimum of about 20 defenders to hold it and create a battle depending on many things like the size of the town, amount of players attacking etc.

So what i'm saying is we should require more players to be spawned in on the underpop side before that AO is available to the overpop side.   I'm seeing 2 def AO's when many times the underpop side can't manage one.  So that's just asking too few to do to much and it makes things stress full.

I also think the spawn delay should be capped at 10 sec ( the time it takes to despawn) and shoot for a spawn delay average instead by offering the ability for the attacker to spawn at 10 seconds  instead of the unpopular 30 sec, or wait a little longer and spawn in as a group of say five in say 35 sec.  This will also address the need for the attacker to have a 2v1 advantage and promote grouping , but now they will meet a less spread out defense.

Long term we really need a new UI that will promote the best HC to lead and gives them tools to provide incentives for players to work together via Medals, squad points, ribbons and EXP points top to bottom to gets players where they're needed while leaving the option to still do whatever they want IMO.

Share this post


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

Underpop should not be denied the ability to attack by game mechanics of pop spawning and capture.  Period.

I've not seen anyone mention being unable to attack. - this thread is looking for ideas to facilitate underpop sides (which would by extension imply an ability to conduct offensive operations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B2K said:

I've not seen anyone mention being unable to attack. - this thread is looking for ideas to facilitate underpop sides (which would by extension imply an ability to conduct offensive operations)

In order to conduct offensive operations, the underpop side must be able to defend everywhere important, and still have some unallocated players. That implies an effective 2v1-population, 1v1-power combat structure so that the defender can have a chance without being population overwhelmed.

There is a further fundamental game design issue that affects the population requirement for defending. Unlike in real warfare, there are no effectively continuous lines in WWIIOL. Instead every defense is an isolated point, with the attacker able to freely move around it and attack where they choose. That's wildly unrealistic. In the real world, an attacker almost always picks a spot in a continuous enemy line, tries to break through it, thenis able to maneuver behind the enemy.

The game would work better in this regard, and defenders would have a more sensible task, if a mechanism were created to either simply bar movement around the flanks of every city/town or perhaps create a 100% lethal, undestructible AI-defender PPO with a 1000 meter range, only placeable at least 1500 meters from a defender-held town and at least 1500 meters from any enemy town or FB location, with such PPOs disappearing upon the defender-held town changing hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I see,  I think there are 2 reasons ppl log off when massively underpop, one because they dont like being camped,
the other is because they dont see any chance to 'win' or make a difference.
 
Spawn camping is a big no when it comes to fun fights but I dont think one can change that.  So already there is one problem that cannot be changed.

The other reason, I think, can be helped by lowering cap timers for massively underpop side.

The underpop side can send off a small group to attack a town and with lower cap timers they can tie up many of the overpop side defending as well as have the possibility of taking the town.   That is incentive to play.

4 people should be able to tie up 8, for example, and that would also give their own defenders a chance.

Oh and sending all ftp players to one side might make the numbers look better but really will not make for better fights, its really just more to mow down in the spawn which will make them leave the game for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jwilly said:

In order to conduct offensive operations, the underpop side must be able to defend everywhere important,

Why does the underpop side need the ability to defend everywhere important? If there are 2 AO's up for example, how can you force the playerbase to defend everywhere important? Who decides what is important and whats not? What happens if all the players decide to go to town A to defend and not town B?

If players were funneled into squads, they would/could have a squad leader direct them instead of some HC type who the players may or may not know. Like i've said before 10 organized players communicating and marking can be a force to be reckoned with. 10 individuals running around like chickens without heads forces players to log off and certainly won't retain new players during that timezone.

Squads are the key to TZ 3 and the underpop problem. Not the solution, but a beginning.

Other viable options

-Extending EWS for the underpop side

-AO timer increase before depots are hot for the overpop side(currently 10 if i'm not mistaken???)

-Depot timers on recap/cap lowered for underpop

-30 second spawn delay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.