• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
xanthus

What is being done to address the numbers imbalance?

105 posts in this topic

S! CRS

The numbers are more lopsided than I've personally seen in many years. What is being done or considered to address this going forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe give access to additional types of equipment to the FTPs if they spawn under pop? Not the same as a vet logging in, but a few of them may help, and all vets do have access to an FTP setup

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ian77 said:

Maybe give access to additional types of equipment to the FTPs if they spawn under pop? Not the same as a vet logging in, but a few of them may help, and all vets do have access to an FTP setup

 

S! Ian

But by doing that you antagonize balanced  populations, people want equipment and will force imbalance to get it like they did with spawn delay to put the enemy at a disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we can start by dropping the strict date entrances. I don't mind the differentiation in brigades, but I warned if you went strict date entry the allied player base would walk. I don't think we are shocked to see the outcome of the auto disparity.. Just saying... it is not rocket science. TBH, I think the outlook for the allies repairing to the point of being able to keep our numbers and win without sideswitchers is far down the road. I really do appreciate those ppl and squads that do switch up and enjoy fighting alongside them. I wish that was not needed. The whole strict date entrance thing has not met its time. Not till we have good numbers and can keep them, then baby steps. Keep the differences in brigs, but tbh, there might need some fluff. Limiting all the good armor in just armor  brigs cut all good armor by 2/3rds coverage. Otherwise mb just get rid of any AT capabilities in the infantry support tanks, or extremely limit the AP or HEAT. I don't know the answer. But tankers want to tank, and infantry want to have a fighting chance with similar capabilities. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lock F2P to the under pop side, 12 hour side locks for all players. An idea at least. 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

Lock F2P to the under pop side, 12 hour side locks for all players. An idea at least. 

What good is locking F2P players? Most don't know what they are doing, so all you accomplish is locking the targets to the underpopped side lol. 

The vets who are using F2P won't play on the side they don't want to, and will log out...watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Well, we can start by dropping the strict date entrances. I don't mind the differentiation in brigades, but I warned if you went strict date entry the allied player base would walk. I don't think we are shocked to see the outcome of the auto disparity.. Just saying... it is not rocket science. TBH, I think the outlook for the allies repairing to the point of being able to keep our numbers and win without sideswitchers is far down the road. I really do appreciate those ppl and squads that do switch up and enjoy fighting alongside them. I wish that was not needed. The whole strict date entrance thing has not met its time. Not till we have good numbers and can keep them, then baby steps. Keep the differences in brigs, but tbh, there might need some fluff. Limiting all the good armor in just armor  brigs cut all good armor by 2/3rds coverage. Otherwise mb just get rid of any AT capabilities in the infantry support tanks, or extremely limit the AP or HEAT. I don't know the answer. But tankers want to tank, and infantry want to have a fighting chance with similar capabilities. 

Yup. Anyone who has played this game for awhile could see the result of this experiment. 

Kind of boggles the mind, but from what I've seen, not that surprising. 

Share this post


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

Well, we can start by dropping the strict date entrances. I don't mind the differentiation in brigades, but I warned if you went strict date entry the allied player base would walk. 

Hi @stankyus. I'd like to know what strict date entrance is. I've not heard the term so could you explain it?  Many thanks from one of the forgotten soldiers aka "The Allies".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic and discusssion is as old as the game, yet Allies and Axis continue to both win campaigns. If a player number inbalance is the main factor in a campaign victory, which I believe it is, to cure that inbalance may be worse than the status quo. If one side were perpetually underpopped campaign after campaign, which is not the case, then that would be a problem in need of a concrete solution. 

The winning side has good player morale and this improves player engagement with the campaign. The losing side has poor player morale, and this negatively affects player engagement. This is human nature. This first person shooter is like no other.  Capture of terrain (towns) is essential to campaign victory. Remove that aspect of the game or neuter the ability to 'move the map' and all you have is a run of the mill shooter. I do not think anyone wants that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what tac said, there is no issue with population except the ones that won't adhere to the system . Capture of the terrain boosts morale by capping cps, so flying and sitting in your matty won't work.

We've seen it a month ago, axis almost came back into campaign around xmas then allied captured 8 towns a night around new year eve and pushed to factories with always high pop 24/24.

I have a hint : stop blaming the system, log in game, take a rifle, go cap a bunker and turn the momentum of the campaign in your favor.

Share this post


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

Hi @stankyus. I'd like to know what strict date entrance is. I've not heard the term so could you explain it?  Many thanks from one of the forgotten soldiers aka "The Allies".

 

when rdp flips, if that item was available at that date it's eligible to enter the game. Cool, until you realize you are fighting PzHs with s35s, and ch3 against tigers. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

But by doing that you antagonize balanced  populations, people want equipment and will force imbalance to get it like they did with spawn delay to put the enemy at a disadvantage.

I just dont see how the FTPs will force imbalance when the pop is balanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, tac2i said:

This topic and discusssion is as old as the game, yet Allies and Axis continue to both win campaigns. If a player number inbalance is the main factor in a campaign victory, which I believe it is, to cure that inbalance may be worse than the status quo. If one side were perpetually underpopped campaign after campaign, which is not the case, then that would be a problem in need of a concrete solution. 

The winning side has good player morale and this improves player engagement with the campaign. The losing side has poor player morale, and this negatively affects player engagement. This is human nature. This first person shooter is like no other.  Capture of terrain (towns) is essential to campaign victory. Remove that aspect of the game or neuter the ability to 'move the map' and all you have is a run of the mill shooter. I do not think anyone wants that.

Let's caviat this to say in the past two years the allies win... when axis squads go allied. That's about every third or fourth axis win in a row generally speaking. So yes both sides do win... ::sigh::. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, matamor said:

Exactly what tac said, there is no issue with population except the ones that won't adhere to the system . Capture of the terrain boosts morale by capping cps, so flying and sitting in your matty won't work.

We've seen it a month ago, axis almost came back into campaign around xmas then allied captured 8 towns a night around new year eve and pushed to factories with always high pop 24/24.

I have a hint : stop blaming the system, log in game, take a rifle, go cap a bunker and turn the momentum of the campaign in your favor.

Do you really believe that stuff you post ? 

Share this post


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

Let's caviat this to say in the past two years the allies win... when axis squads go allied. That's about every third or fourth axis win in a row generally speaking. So yes both sides do win... ::sigh::. 

Unfortunately this is the current position, if just one or two axis squads play allied, then the allies seem to become the OP side and the map moves east.

This map I don't think any axis squads are allied, and some allied vets are trying out playing axis for a map or two (it is a really good idea to experience both sides fyi), this coupled with the players not logging in due to the changes in the spawn lists has combined to crush what was already pretty fragile allied morale.

As many have said in numerous other posts the end result of all the pretty severe changes to spawn lists, dates, scarcity, disparity of numbers, etc seem obvious - player dissatisfaction, so less logging in, and map rolling west. The more any side gets rolled, the less their players log in, thus increasing the disparity in Overpop. The allies having their morale shattered is historically accurate but I doubt that was the realism that was envisaged.. I dont know how this latest blow to player numbers can be fixed, maybe 1.36 will be enough, but the damage is done now, and 1.36 is still just over the horizon.

I just shake my head as poor decision follows poor decision...........

 

S! ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Do you really believe that stuff you post ? 

Not only me but the majority. Your few sorties this campaign proves it.

Share this post


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

when rdp flips, if that item was available at that date it's eligible to enter the game. Cool, until you realize you are fighting PzHs with s35s, and ch3 against tigers. 

Disagree. Historical introduction is important since it gives flavor and eliminates one aspect of potential whining. Balance the spawn numbers but not the unit.

If you want to go down that weapon-triad road we should eliminate the Matty and Char from Tier 0 since Axis have an equivalent tank. And extending that logic we should remove the 88 entirely from the game.

IMHO that makes the game boring. Which is why I don't mind the Matty in T0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the Allies are strictly limited too noobs running IN town, snipers galore and real lopsided numbers makes for bad gameplay, watching Axis cap spawn while 10 snipers in buildings all around is depressing...

so chasing monkey's we go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many monkeys does it take to change a lightbulb here? How are you going to patch low population numbers? Not enough in game to fill all the roles, if you aren't playing infantry capping points, or you're in the air strafing and having fun, and not switching units or switching sides and clans to balance the already less than battlefield 1942 numbers of players on the map, then you're the problem and not the infantry controls, weapon models and player animations, and the horrible, poorly observed and poorly thought out dying on the hill of paying for a subscription every month, OR WE WOULD RATHER YOU NOT PLAY OUR GAME. As if you're doing yourself a favor, when your population is less than that of a 1 hour long pixel games  about catching your naked dad that came out 2 years ago.

Share this post


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

What good is locking F2P players? Most don't know what they are doing, so all you accomplish is locking the targets to the underpopped side lol. 

The vets who are using F2P won't play on the side they don't want to, and will log out...watch. 

Not only that, moving the F2P players over to the underpop side will just mitigate the balance mechanisms that are supposed to help the underpop side (i.e. it will reduce the OPs spawn delay and cap timers) without actually increasing the combat effectiveness of the UP side.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squads have a strict side policy on swiching sides, and squads are essential for showing new players how to play.

some rats didn't even know about the policy... locking F2P is a horrible idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.