Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nugitx

Auto-balance (with players able to pick a side)

10 posts in this topic

First, i'd like to say that yes - you will be able to choose a side.

Second, i'll just leave this here as an 'open idea' - whether it is pointless or not, the idea will be here.

Third, i'll try to explain as best as I can what I have in mind.

Fourth, this is probably for the future, with more players and a 'bigger front'.

 

An auto-balance that allows players and squads to pick a side, with a player difference ratio mechanic with a wider margin during the first hours of the war (or just turned off at start of the war), so more players can pick a side they want.

1) New war starts, lets say for the first 24-48 hours of the war,  the 'player gap' is wider (or the balancer is turned off)so more players can choose a side they want, so for the first 48 hours,  200 players choose allies and 100 players axis.

2) After 48 hours of 'new war' the balancer goes to the default value, so now we have 200 allies and 100 axis, so now the next 100 players *joining the war* have to go to axis, so we have 200 vs 200.

3) At 200 vs 200, *new players joining the war* can again pick their side, and this process repeats.

4) Players that did not log for a long period get removed from the list of players, so the list maintains somewhat accurate data of players playing.

5) Squad leader would pick a side for the whole squad, also whole squads need to be moved.

6) It needs to be decided what ratio would be the best, when the balancer 'kicks in'  2:1, 3:1 etc    whether for example allow 100 allies and 50 axis,  or allow 150 vs 50 untill the balancer starts to 'balance'

7) Of course it will not be perfectly balanced, because 'the list of players' would contain the players that have choosen a side(even those that are off-line) and not the currently 'logged in' population, but it still should be a better balance, than without it.

 

 

 

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nugitx said:

An auto-balance that allows players and squads to pick a side, with a player difference ratio mechanic with a wider margin during the first hours of the war (or just turned off at start of the war), so more players can pick a side they want.

2) After 48 hours of 'new war' the balancer goes to the default value, so now we have 200 allies and 100 axis, so now the next 100 players *joining the war* have to go to axis, so we have 200 vs 200.

3) At 200 vs 200, *new players joining the war* can again pick their side, and this process repeats.

5) Squad leader would pick a side for the whole squad, also whole squads need to be moved.

 

What if there won't be enough latecomers to balance the sides out? Do you keep at it until the campaign is over or do you force an autobalance? 

What if your squad leader isn't active at the time your squad should be choosing a side? Does a member with squad rank X have the power to choose for the whole squad, if the CO hasn't decided the side? Do individual squad members get to choose a side without leaving the squad, in case of where COs aren't currently active? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gretnine said:

What if there won't be enough latecomers to balance the sides out? Do you keep at it until the campaign is over or do you force an autobalance?

Would be best IMO if it remained until the end of the campaign, so there would be a steady low influx of players to the 'under popped side'.

 

What if your squad leader isn't active at the time your squad should be choosing a side? Does a member with squad rank X have the power to choose for the whole squad, if the CO hasn't decided the side?

That's a good idea, the players with 'lower rank' could decide if the leader is not active.

 

Do individual squad members get to choose a side without leaving the squad, in case of where COs aren't currently active?

That's a problem that would have to be thought out,  maybe just allow the currently logged in player from the squad, to choose the side for 'whole squad'.

Share this post


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

Would be best IMO if it remained until the end of the campaign, so there would be a steady low influx of players to the 'under popped side'.

 

So worst case, things would stay the exact same balance wise as it is now. This would only eliminate side switchers to the winning side and thats it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, gretnine said:

So worst case, things would stay the exact same balance wise as it is now. This would only eliminate side switchers to the winning side and thats it. 

I guess so, all depends how many players are playing ww2ol....

With big player numbers and 'open front', this would prevent chaos.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic idea - which is an autobalanced sidelock - is interesting. I would probably variate it a bit as we have lots of one sided squads, I am in one of those myself. And I think it could be a good way to promote squads even more by actually giving beneftis for being in a squad:

1. A squad can set (and reset if it choses to do so) it's alliance. At the start of the next campaign the members of the squad are sidelocked to this faction as long as the campaign lasts.

2. Every player that is not member of a squad with an alliance preference get's autobalanced in the way you described it.

3. TOM should play a part later on. If one side accumulates much more mission time, players without a squad should be aligned to this side, even if they have more players on paper.

4. Personally I would go further: If you are not in a squad, you have to play on the team that currently has fewer players. Allignment stays as long as you are logged in. If you relog, you get reassigned to the underpop side.

What it could bring:

* more balanced pops. lone wolves will be auto balanced

* No switching to the winning team, more staying in the whining team - a more consistent campaign as a result

* team players get encouraged to join a squad - with even more team play as a result

Edited by vanapo
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2018 at 1:12 PM, vanapo said:

The basic idea - which is an autobalanced sidelock - is interesting. I would probably variate it a bit as we have lots of one sided squads, I am in one of those myself. And I think it could be a good way to promote squads even more by actually giving beneftis for being in a squad:

1. A squad can set (and reset if it choses to do so) it's alliance. At the start of the next campaign the members of the squad are sidelocked to this faction as long as the campaign lasts.

2. Every player that is not member of a squad with an alliance preference get's autobalanced in the way you described it.

3. TOM should play a part later on. If one side accumulates much more mission time, players without a squad should be aligned to this side, even if they have more players on paper.

4. Personally I would go further: If you are not in a squad, you have to play on the team that currently has fewer players. Allignment stays as long as you are logged in. If you relog, you get reassigned to the underpop side.

What it could bring:

* more balanced pops. lone wolves will be auto balanced

* No switching to the winning team, more staying in the whining team - a more consistent campaign as a result

* team players get encouraged to join a squad - with even more team play as a result

This could work, although I think it'd be better until some things with squads and infrastructure were changed up.

We currently rely very heavily on squads and the community to retain new players. However, we also want new players to try out both sides so they see what they like.

You can also only join a squad if you join a mission hosted by that squad, so you'd have to join the squad to be able to be side-locked, and waiting until one side isn't overpop so you can hop and get side-locked is gamey.

I think maybe a short grace period for brand new players would be appropriate, and Integrated Voice Comms would be critical since we'd be tacitly discouraging committing to a squad until you figure out the side you'd like.

 

Still, it doesn't solve the problem where if you have a lot of people in one side's squads then you're still pretty much stuck. You can flood the other side with newbies but quantity doesn't exactly compensate for quality.

What the game really needs is more side-switchers and incentivizations to side-switch, as anathema as that is to basically every single vet. I'm not saying "play five minutes and switch", but "play for a couple hours, log, when you come back pick the underpop side please". Among those incentivizations needs to include some variety of community integration since almost all of the squads (if not all) play one side or the other for a campaign and boot side-switchers. So IVC is critical in those hat situation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

I think maybe a short grace period for brand new players would be appropriate, and Integrated Voice Comms would be critical since we'd be tacitly discouraging committing to a squad until you figure out the side you'd like.

I am with you on this @chaoswzkd - there are big changes yet to come. We should see how that works out - especially in game voice coms. Then we can recall this idea as I think it really could be a good way to balance sides out a bit more. I think it's much more effective and has more side benefits than the old proposal "autobalance the f2p accounts". New players should get a grace period of course, time to find a squad, look at both sides and just play around a bit. I am hopefull in game voice communication will accelerate the squad recruitement and learning curve for new players to a huge degree.

21 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

Still, it doesn't solve the problem where if you have a lot of people in one side's squads then you're still pretty much stuck. You can flood the other side with newbies but quantity doesn't exactly compensate for quality.

We kind of have this problems allready and there is kind of a gentleman's agreement between both sides to interchange players or even whole squads when it's obvious one side has more veterans than the other side. It doesn't really work however. This campaign seems to be hugely unbalanced if you look at the TOM - and we only realized it when the map shifted quite a bit already. Having clear numbers of how many squads with how many players and how much TOM each side has could encourage the balance between squads further. "Last campaign had more axis squadmemebers - come on guys, we need people to step over for one campaign." I think this could work at least to some degree. And you would have an autobalance that would soften the effect in any case.

21 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

What the game really needs is more side-switchers and incentivizations to side-switch, as anathema as that is to basically every single vet. I'm not saying "play five minutes and switch", but "play for a couple hours, log, when you come back pick the underpop side please". Among those incentivizations needs to include some variety of community integration since almost all of the squads (if not all) play one side or the other for a campaign and boot side-switchers. So IVC is critical in those hat situation as well.

Actually I don't think this is a solution for an ongoing campaign. People always want to play with the winning team. They even tend to vote more in favour of a candidate if they think he will win - even if this would not hold any benefit for them. And they tend not to vote at all if they think their candidate won't win. This is what happens with players as well. This effect draws players away from the loosing team and gives even more benefits to the winning team.

Plus side switching is not for everybody as a huge part of the community, especially the squads, see the results of a campaign as something they worked for and they are responsible for. So they won't change on a daily basis. I don't think a lot of people would spend 50 hours on RDP runs to take down german factories - and then switch sides to spend 50 hours bombing french factories just for the sake of RDP bombing.

The beautiful thing of a persistent ongoing campaign is that you can play in the same team for weeks. This is motivating. So side alignment is per se a good thing. But I agree with you that encouraging casual players to play the underpop side is a needed and good thing. If this does not work however, we have to use brute force :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.