Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Di11on

Population balance mechanism

21 posts in this topic

An alternative to spawn delay as a balancing mechanism...

The main problem, as I see it, is that the low-pop side has a very small chance of capturing anything or having a meaningful attack... trucks get raped trying to set up and FRUs are insta-camped. This is a real morale crusher. So in my opinion, a balance mechanism should help the low-pop side get a meaningful attack going.

How about all of the following:

 - EWS distance decreases
 - FRU set up time decreases
 - AO timers decrease
 - Cap timers decrease

But all by small amounts that can be tweaked.

This basically gives the under-pop side a "head start" in getting their attack set up. It's also logical since a smaller force should be more nimble, agile and less easily detected so the above measures do make some sense.

Another version of this idea would be to have a special forces brigade that you can deploy in times of low pop that has all the features mentioned above.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capture timers have already been made variable based on population.

These timers can be found here

The FRU timer is one minute which is much shorter from the 3-5 min we once had.

Not sure on what you mean by AO timer and how a difference would effect population size.

 

Ews would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

Because it'd kill squads, and once squads are dead the game would follow.

Quote

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

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to balance the population is to have the system allocate slots. You pick a slot and you are forced to stick with that side for the entire campaign. It alternates on a first-come, first-serve basis. I choose Allies, the next person has to be Axis. Rinse and repeat. It would make the numbers way more balanced--unlike right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been noted in the past that a significant percentage of customers want to be on the winning side, and will side-switch to get there.

Presumably all of those are "lone wolves". 

Block them from side-switching, or choosing which side they want to be on at campaign start based on their perception of who will win, and they might leave, since it's a key psychic-income element for them.

I don't think any mechanism is good that explicitly blocks a key customer choice like which side to play on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 3:20 PM, chaoswzkd said:

Because it'd kill squads, and once squads are dead the game would follow.

Image result for thats a bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, would have to be an allowance for squads.

If the CO has committed to a side, then all players of that squad can freely choose that side, regardless of balance pop requirements.

This gets around the squad issue.

If you aren't in a squad, then you get put to underpop side, just like every other online game in the world.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Disagree. Players must be free to join the side of their choice. At most I would support a longer side lock. 

Every other game in the world disagrees with this, how come we the odd one out?
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dont pay ...you are not a customer, you are a guest! Use the ftp accounts to balance - if balance is a required thing that is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

If you dont pay ...you are not a customer, you are a guest! Use the ftp accounts to balance - if balance is a required thing that is :)

The only problem with this is that most F2P players are useless in what needs to be done...guarding CPs, ABs, Fb busts, etc. 

Just adds cannon fodder to the already underpopped side. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mosizlak said:

The only problem with this is that most F2P players are useless in what needs to be done...guarding CPs, ABs, Fb busts, etc. 

Just adds cannon fodder to the already underpopped side. 

Sadly this is true 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree partially, but many FPA are semi-vets also.

And, FPA are the recruits your side needs to develop, think bad team in sports - but they get lots of new players so a while later they have good team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, delems said:

Agree partially, but many FPA are semi-vets also.

And, FPA are the recruits your side needs to develop, think bad team in sports - but they get lots of new players so a while later they have good team.

 

The vets that are F2P mostly play their side that they used to play. 

I can't see hardcore Allied/Axis guys who are shuffled to the other side to even play. 

I just don't think the answer is putting F2P on the underpopped side. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of games have auto balance but that doesn't make it a good mechanic to use all the time. In most, there is the option to switch if you don't like the team you are on. I for one dislike being forced to play on the side that is not my choice. In Red Orchestra, for example, I would side-switch or worse, if forced by the server, wait until I had a slot on the team I wanted. Forcing players onto a side shouldn't be the rule. Verdun has a good example I think; they let you pick your side but you get messages telling you what the imbalance and if you want to switch, although even that can be overdone quite a bit. If I said no the first time, don't ask me again for at least an hour.

WW2OL has side loyalty for many, that is not a bad thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the town-contested-to-ABs-hot timer. 

 

 

So often, a small force will cap a single CP in the town but that never amounts to anything. Increase the likelihood of bouncing the ABs and the surgical underpop attacks take on a much greater significance 

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."

Edited by sublimesw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with reducing the EWS triggers or delaying them.

And reducing the contest time for cps-

Edited by pbveteran

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.