• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
lutenint

The TZ3 Dilemma

85 posts in this topic

Long has past the days of the "Breakfast Club" and subsequent multi cap of towns with little to no response from the defenders. My question is now, what can be done as a solution to the current TZ3 crisis. This map as an example, has shown that all it takes is a mobile relatively sizable squad to cap towns during low population times for the map to move in either direction. This is a major problem. I know throughout the years things have been proposed to fix this (AO's, Depo caps over Radio's and AI). But as we can see it's not really working and is causing most players to hate campaigns.

 So, anything been worked on with this or are we waiting until steam release to save us. Because i remember back in the day the Chinese release was supposed to give us an influx of money, but as shown that wasn't so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to really do much about tz3 and other low population problems. Low pop is the reason for campaigns going the way they do. Only way you could fix this would be mass advertising in areas that are awake and can play during the low population times to get people to join. 

 

The bottom line is that no matter what CRS do to the game, the only thing that would be able to change the pushing of low population times is to get more players on during those times for both sides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, what needs to be done in low population is reduce the tasks needed to defend. Right now there are too many things that need to be done to defend effectively and not enough people to do so. Its called task saturation. You can't get so little amount of people to protect cps, abs, fbs, recap cps, recap abs, blow fbs, setup for incoming armor, deal with eFMS's, deal with incoming infantry, deal with incoming bombers and fighters, and I am sure there a lot more things to do that I haven't even listed. And many of these things have to be done at the same time. Now on top of that, you have to have people willing to work together in this situation. I have had hard time getting people to work together in high pop, I would think it would even be harder to get done in low pop.

When you are equal in numbers, typically the defender has the advantage. But when the amount of players defending goes below the amount of tasks that needs to be done, the defender has lost.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Scking said:

IMO, what needs to be done in low population is reduce the tasks needed to defend. Right now there are too many things that need to be done to defend effectively and not enough people to do so. Its called task saturation. You can't get so little amount of people to protect cps, abs, fbs, recap cps, recap abs, blow fbs, setup for incoming armor, deal with eFMS's, deal with incoming infantry, deal with incoming bombers and fighters, and I am sure there a lot more things to do that I haven't even listed. And many of these things have to be done at the same time. Now on top of that, you have to have people willing to work together in this situation. I have had hard time getting people to work together in high pop, I would think it would even be harder to get done in low pop.

When you are equal in numbers, typically the defender has the advantage. But when the amount of players defending goes below the amount of tasks that needs to be done, the defender has lost.   

This is a well-known concept in WWIIOL's metagame known as "critical mass".  


X number of game mechanics creates Y number of jobs to do per side, which is further scaled by P(total) number of players on the server since the number of AOs (and therefore the number of jobs to do) is a function of P(total).

Y number of jobs requires a total of P(critical) number of players per side to do them effectively.  

Given P(actual) amount of players on a side, when P(actual) is greater than or equal to P(critical) for both sides, the game "functions" properly.  

When P(actual) is less than P(critical) for one side, the game breaks down.  

Edited by capco

Share this post


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

This is a well-known concept in WWIIOL's metagame known as "critical mass".  


X number of game mechanics creates Y number of jobs to do per side, which is further scaled by P(total) number of players on the server since the number of AOs (and therefore the number of jobs to do) is a function of P(total).

Y number of jobs requires a total of P(critical) number of players per side to do them effectively.  

Given P(actual) amount of players on a side, when P(actual) is greater than or equal to P(critical) for both sides, the game "functions" properly.  

When P(actual) is less than P(critical) for one side, the game breaks down.  

Thanks for simplifying it for me ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 8:43 PM, Scking said:

Thanks for simplifying it for me ;)

Lol.

 

But to your point, what needs to be done is this:  the number of jobs to do for the the underpop side should scale with the number of players that are actually on the underpop side, instead of the total number of players.  

That's the fundamental issue.  Right now, Y(underpop) does not scale with P(actual_underpop)Y(underpop) scales with P(total), and P(total) is dominated by P(actual_overpop).

 

That issue can be fixed by making those jobs easier to do, or having them take less time.

For example, what if the underpop side could build their FMS in just a few seconds?  What if the number of charges to take down an FB scaled with how underpop you were?  What if your flags could move faster if you were underpop (won't matter anymore but still)?  There are more ideas on the table than what is being done.  

Edited by capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, capco said:

Lol.

 

But to your point, what needs to be done is this:  the number of jobs for the the underpop side to do should scale with the number of players that are actually on the underpop side, instead of the total number of players.  

That's the fundamental issue.  Right now, Y(underpop) does not scale with P(actual_underpop)Y(underpop) scales with P(total), and P(total) is dominated by P(actual_overpop).

 

That issue can be fixed by making those jobs easier to do, or having them take less time.

For example, what if the underpop side could build their FMS in just a few seconds?  What if the number of charges to take down an FB scaled with how underpop you were?  What if your flags could move faster if you were underpop (won't matter anymore but still)?  There are more ideas on the table than what is being done.  

 

Exactly..

I think one idea would be removing the ninja cap.. When the side with more players tries to cap a cp, the flag should go neutral (white) at 50% capture and announce it "<CP> is being captured". (I despise ninja caps and think that should be a full time feature, not just in low pop.)

I think another idea is disabling spawnable cps for the over pop side when attacking in low pop.

Cap timer scaling, FB damage scaling, FMS build scaling, etc, etc..

There are a lot of things that can help the underpop side in low pop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing I'd change is that when imbalance goes over a threshold, CP cap timers are slashed, as is the contested-to-AB-hot timer. 

 

A grossly over-popped side should win, numbers should take towns. But the opposition should have the ability to pinch back and punish sloppy over-confidence. 

Share this post


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

The first thing I'd change is that when imbalance goes over a threshold, CP cap timers are slashed, as is the contested-to-AB-hot timer. 

 

A grossly over-popped side should win, numbers should take towns. But the opposition should have the ability to pinch back and punish sloppy over-confidence. 

Well I understand the hesitation when it's just imbalanced.. This is mostly for tz3 low pop that is essentially deciding each map with the least amount of players.

TZ1 & TZ2 are typically good battles until TZ3 comes along and rolls the map one way or the other and starts making the other side log off in TZ1 & TZ2. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Well I understand the hesitation when it's just imbalanced.. This is mostly for tz3 low pop that is essentially deciding each map with the least amount of players.

TZ1 & TZ2 are typically good battles until TZ3 comes along and rolls the map one way or the other and starts making the other side log off in TZ1 & TZ2. 

Agreed, and it's impossibly frustrating. But there was no alternative, other than a ridiculous handicap mechanism that would somehow mean that a period of sustained over-pop didn't result in major gains. I don't believe in funnelling people to play one side and I don't believe in artificial handicaps of that nature. 

 

What could have been done was some slight amendments to TOEs to mitigate the Line collapse and morale collapse of a breakthrough, such as use of the Corps units or keeping HQs rear in order to back up the line with covering supply, but we missed that boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Silky said:

Agreed, and it's impossibly frustrating. But there was no alternative, other than a ridiculous handicap mechanism that would somehow mean that a period of sustained over-pop didn't result in major gains. I don't believe in funnelling people to play one side and I don't believe in artificial handicaps of that nature. 

 

What could have been done was some slight amendments to TOEs to mitigate the Line collapse and morale collapse of a breakthrough, such as use of the Corps units or keeping HQs rear in order to back up the line with covering supply, but we missed that boat. 

More like the boat left the dock for uncharted territory when there were people waiting on the pier with ideas for fixes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, capco said:

More like the boat left the dock for uncharted territory when there were people waiting on the pier with ideas for fixes.  

Not sure we're headed to uncharted territory, though - we've been there before and things were such that people decided to drastically change things by implementing TOEs. 

 

So, I'm onboard, I'm not looking to disembark but I'm hoping the seasickness I fear is coming won't be as bad as it might 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gday all :)

Yes - I'd like to see more TZ3 players - which means Asia and Oceania mostly.

I have seen a few Chinese players lately, but not many :(

Maybe CRS and us players can at least try to spread the word to TZ3 players e.g. Australia, NZ, Japan, China, HK, Singapore.

Not to mention the un-tapped customers in North Korea ;)

Kapyong

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when I play late a night I've seen one side only have 3-5 players logged on.  If one side gets to those low of numbers the map should be freezed and the sever to fun mode until more people log on.

 

i came back last year with two friends who loved the game until all the things we fought for we're lost every night we logged off. They don't play the game anymore and I barely do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, muggles said:

Sometimes when I play late a night I've seen one side only have 3-5 players logged on.  If one side gets to those low of numbers the map should be freezed and the sever to fun mode until more people log on.

 

i came back last year with two friends who loved the game until all the things we fought for we're lost every night we logged off. They don't play the game anymore and I barely do.

And that's he bad part.. The few ruining the fun of the bulk of the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Last 5 Towns went to Germany. Great fights last night. Great Defense by Allies.  Now all Axis. 

Leuven, Chimay, Vireaux, Couvin, Rocroi,

Edit: Add Wavre to the  list. That makes 6.

City By
Leuven GERMANY
Chimay GERMANY
Vireaux GERMANY
Couvin GERMANY
Rocroi GERMANY
Edited by lipton

Share this post


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

Wow. Last 5 Towns went to Germany. Great fights last night. Great Defense by Allies.  Now all Axis. 

Leuven, Chimay, Vireaux, Couvin, Rocroi,

Edit: Add Wavre to the  list. That makes 6.

City By
Leuven GERMANY
Chimay GERMANY
Vireaux GERMANY
Couvin GERMANY
Rocroi GERMANY

That's the issue, and this post was made before this camp also so this isn't side bias or anything. I'm concerned that these low pop squads are basically determining the outcome of the map. Which is beyond ridiculous.

 

Honestly the proposed halt of capture (until we get more players) seems best. It's a major turn off when you log in and either your team has gained large ground or lost large ground simply because the actions of very few who log in at very low pop times. 

Edited by lutenint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question, though, is whether disabling captures in TZ3 is more or less likely to encourage more players to play 

Share this post


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

That's the issue, and this post was made before this camp also so this isn't side bias or anything. I'm concerned that these low pop squads are basically determining the outcome of the map. Which is beyond ridiculous.

 

Honestly the proposed halt of capture (until we get more players) seems best. It's a major turn off when you log in and either your team has gained large ground or lost large ground simply because the actions of very few who log in at very low pop times. 

so if we were to freeze captures during the time you play, would you bother to log in?

Share this post


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

so if we were to freeze captures during the time you play, would you bother to log in?

I wouldn't log in. 

 

What for? If CRS were to do this they might as well lock the servers for that TZ. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, by shutting down the server in TZ3, you could somehow guarantee that we'd net more American and Euros who would subscribe in TZ1 and TZ2 than the subs we would lose in TZ3, I would make that call.  

 

It's impossible to be sure about that unfortunately.  I think it's highly likely, but even if it were true, it would take time for those subs to build in TZ1 and TZ2.  Meanwhile, you'd instantly lose all your TZ3 subs.  You'd have to market the news heavily to bring back those players turned off by TZ3 rolls in order to make up for the difference ASAP.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.