• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
xanthus

What is being done to address the numbers imbalance?

105 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, potthead said:

i am not sure if they are the type of players we should be DRAWING to the game as such. 

One step above AI is better than nothing. :lol:

I applaud your efforts though to get the squad going and help new players..........you can lead a horse to water.......

Edited by bmw

Share this post


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

There isn’t much we can do ... we cannot force anyone to play on a side they do not what to. 

Timers to try and get players to go on the under populated side really doesn’t do anything but make them unhappy that they need to wait. 

 

The only thing that that makes players go to any one side is other players , friends, squad mates and leaders .... when a side has these things that’s where they will go. 

Also a friendly atmosphere helps .... negative chat doesn’t help at all. Accusing new players of being cheaters when they are trying the weapons out right where they spawn is what drives players away. 

 

The side that has good visible leadership will have players flock to that side.  Each side needs strong leadership and we need to have that and that starts with players stepping up to lead !!!

 

"There isn’t much we can do ... we cannot force anyone to play on a side they do not what to."

Every single online PvP game has side restrictions, forcing players joining the server to play for the underpop side so that teams are *always* balanced number-wise. But ok.

"Timers to try and get players to go on the under populated side really doesn’t do anything but make them unhappy that they need to wait."

Every single online PvP has spawn delay timers because they *most certainly* have an impact on the battlefield beyond making players unhappy; in Post Scriptum, it's up to 60 seconds. Game designers universally understand why these are necessary. But ok.

"The only thing that that makes players go to any one side is other players , friends, squad mates and leaders .... when a side has these things that’s where they will go. "

Ummm....but that doesn't apply to the hordes of n00bies and free-play-accounts that I see in the game every single day, so that can't *actually* be exactly true.

"The side that has good visible leadership will have players flock to that side. "

Again, this *sounds* nice, but it's obviously wishful thinking and it's just not true. Most casual players, FPAs, n00bs, etc couldn't care less about this; they pick a side (and stick with it or not) due to other, more superficial reasons (i.e. "Wermacht is cool" or "I wanna kill n*zis" or "I like the equipment"). If they switch at all, the biggest factor I can think of is simply numbers imbalance; they don't want to play on the losing side, getting camped. Otherwise *most* (not all) vets are basically loyal to a side and stick with it, whether they're lone wolves or have been part of a squad that's loyal to one side or the other, they don't sit there and *think* when they click on which side to join when they launch the game.

 

 

And so the answer to the sincere question posed in the thread title is "Nothing."

Got it. :(

Edited by xanthus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe CRS has concluded that there's a certain base level of players on each side that will stay no matter what, and a separate cohort that they rapidly lose if those players are forced to play on the underpop side, as you reference. So, CRS's revenue is maximized by letting the status quo continue.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Because they don't know you or even the game yet, and buying the sub for anyone isn't going to do favors. I'm sorry you feel the need to do that just to keep people in the game, but these people need to come around on their own accord, that's really what the F2P is for. It's kind of funny that you would do that though, but I'm not surprised I have been with you in TS years ago when I was in I forget what axis clan and you enjoy this game a lot so I don't blame ya for tryin.

Continuing the lizard lays a 100 eggs then waddles off and the baby lizards fend for themselves business model of retention is very Darwinian, I think we get a smarter player as an unintended byproduct, but really we need to be more mammalian in our approach to 'raising our young'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jwilly said:

Maybe CRS has concluded that there's a certain base level of players on each side that will stay no matter what, and a separate cohort that they rapidly lose if those players are forced to play on the underpop side, as you reference. So, CRS's revenue is maximized by letting the status quo continue.

The sick part is I suspect something you've been on about all along, the need to win as a retention/the game is right component, looms much bigger then I ever would have liked to believe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The only thing that that makes players go to any one side is other players , friends, squad mates and leaders .... when a side has these things that’s where they will go. 

Also a friendly atmosphere helps .... negative chat doesn’t help at all. Accusing new players of being cheaters when they are trying the weapons out right where they spawn is what drives players away. 

 

 

I think some of this is just plain BS, I'm sorry. What you are suggesting is negativity and petty cheat accusations are more apt to be on the Allied side. I think people are people - all things being equal - you are going to find just about the same spectrum of personalities on BOTH sides. I mean - have you paid attention to this social experiment we call the WWIIOL forums? What you described isn't the magic elixir - rather a bunch of conjecture to be quite frank. Sure there are Allied paranoia and plenty of a-holes to be had - but really no more or less than there are on the Axis. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, choad said:

 

I think some of this is just plain BS, I'm sorry. What you are suggesting is negativity and petty cheat accusations are more apt to be on the Allied side. I think people are people - all things being equal - you are going to find just about the same spectrum of personalities on BOTH sides. I mean - have you paid attention to this social experiment we call the WWIIOL forums? What you described isn't the magic elixir - rather a bunch of conjecture to be quite frank. Sure there are Allied paranoia and plenty of a-holes to be had - but really no more or less than there are on the Axis. 

I dunno about that, I think you're reading in things that he isn't saying and wouldn't say.

And it's factual that acting badly towards noobs will hurt retention, no controversy there.

Share this post


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

I dunno about that, I think you're reading in things that he isn't saying and wouldn't say.

And it's factual that acting badly towards noobs will hurt retention, no controversy there.

Completely agree with you on the second part.

Regarding the first, i was reading what he wrote in the context of the pop imbalance discussed in this thread and that is what i understood him to be talking about ... could be wrong. Nothing personal of course....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been discussed over and over thru the years.......everything but side locking has been tried or thought of.

1.  You implement side locks to F2P, if they want to play one side over the other and they cant...........you lose them

2. You implement side locks to F2P, and all the VETS that unsubbed and play F2P as a boycott due to what they feel are unjust changes....you lose them.

3. You implement side lock to all to balance out sides you [censored] everyone off.........and well you see where that's going.

If all that is done POOF......no one left

The point is.....side lock will NEVER happen so why it keeps getting discussed over and over is beyond me.  There is only ONE solution.................After this map......I will be playing Allied the next few maps and that should even it out!  :lol:

2 people like this

Share this post


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

This topic has been discussed over and over thru the years.......everything but side locking has been tried or thought of.

1.  You implement side locks to F2P, if they want to play one side over the other and they cant...........you lose them

2. You implement side locks to F2P, and all the VETS that unsubbed and play F2P as a boycott due to what they feel are unjust changes....you lose them.

3. You implement side lock to all to balance out sides you [censored] everyone off.........and well you see where that's going.

If all that is done POOF......no one left

The point is.....side lock will NEVER happen so why it keeps getting discussed over and over is beyond me.  There is only ONE solution.................After this map......I will be playing Allied the next few maps and that should even it out!  :lol:

You don't take Statsmatamor with you, it won't help!

Share this post


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

 

Not true. We have actual data, and yep, there *is* most definitely a significant pop imbalance. Did you see choad's graphs on CP captures?

And anyway, I'd say Axis has more n00bs/FPAs than Allied side does.

I will thank you not to take my words out of context, @Xanthus, especially since I was speaking about a specific timezone (typically known as the beginning phase of TZ3).  Your observations on 'more n00bs/FPAs being axis' may or may not be accurate---I was crystal clear in qualifying my remarks as being what I am seeing.  Overall, this map, I do think the Allies have had less folks on than in the past few campaigns.  I look at data, too, Xanthus.

 

On 1/27/2019 at 10:52 AM, augetout said:

I am not seeing a pop imbalance as much as I am seeing an imbalance in the number of veteran players, with the Allies (currently) coming up on the short end of that stick.

 

In other words, during the late-night portion of my gaming the past couple of weeks, I have seen the Allies go overpop a ton of times, without it having the positive effect everyone assumes it should have.  In fact, I think being overpop on the basis of having more new players ingame actually (short term only) hurts the Allied side, as it shortens the cap timers for the aggressive axis vets who are ingame during those time periods.

 

 

Edited by augetout

Share this post


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

You don't take Statsmatamor with you, it won't help!

Ok...I'll stay Axis. :P

Share this post


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

Maybe CRS has concluded that there's a certain base level of players on each side that will stay no matter what, and a separate cohort that they rapidly lose if those players are forced to play on the underpop side, as you reference. So, CRS's revenue is maximized by letting the status quo continue.

Yep, this is what I suspected when I posted the thread in the first place. I hoped it wasn't true; willing to give CRS 2.0 the benefit of the doubt. But yes, pretty clear that you're right.

Share this post


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

You don't take Statsmatamor with you, it won't help!

Stats are all that matters more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of fun on the allied side these days and switching over to the axis will only make it worse.  I find myself looking for other things to do than playing, which is perhaps a good thing anyway.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Not a lot of fun on the allied side these days and switching over to the axis will only make it worse.  I find myself looking for other things to do than playing, which is perhaps a good thing anyway.

This is the human behavior I mentioned in a previous post in this thread. It is true for both Allied and Axis. When you side of choice is losing, your motivation to play suffers and you log in less or eventually not at all until a new campaign starts. I do not know that CRS  can change this basic human behavior. We all like winning. Losing isn't fun. Can a game where no side ever wins be fun? I think some ideas being pushed/considered could push the game in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I  like to pick a side ,and stick to it for the map , don't care if it's a winning map or not. I will play Allied next map .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmw said:

This topic has been discussed over and over thru the years.......everything but side locking has been tried or thought of.

1.  You implement side locks to F2P, if they want to play one side over the other and they cant...........you lose them

2. You implement side locks to F2P, and all the VETS that unsubbed and play F2P as a boycott due to what they feel are unjust changes....you lose them.

3. You implement side lock to all to balance out sides you [censored] everyone off.........and well you see where that's going.

If all that is done POOF......no one left

The point is.....side lock will NEVER happen so why it keeps getting discussed over and over is beyond me.  There is only ONE solution.................After this map......I will be playing Allied the next few maps and that should even it out!  :lol:

 

2 hours ago, tatonka said:

I  like to pick a side ,and stick to it for the map , don't care if it's a winning map or not. I will play Allied next map .

 

I'm sorry, but unless people are permanently switching to the Allies (i.e. making the Allies their home and maybe occasionally playing Axis), any temporary side switchers actually hurts the Allies' ability to fend for themselves in the long run.  All you are doing is kicking the can down the road.   We need to win campaigns on our own for crying out loud.  

 

Players have told me flat out before that they will switch sides when the other side is in a rut in order to prevent the nerf bat from hitting their home side.  That type of behavior does not help.  

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


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

Yep, this is what I suspected when I posted the thread in the first place. I hoped it wasn't true; willing to give CRS 2.0 the benefit of the doubt. But yes, pretty clear that you're right.

With this in mind I wonder if we’ll ever see LMGs corrected 

Share this post


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

 

"There isn’t much we can do ... we cannot force anyone to play on a side they do not what to."

Every single online PvP game has side restrictions, forcing players joining the server to play for the underpop side so that teams are *always* balanced number-wise. But ok.

I don't know of another game, where what I do this evening or this weekend, I can come back tomorrow and continue to build on and the ROUND is not over yet.. every other one .. the ROUNDS go from 2 mins to 3-4 hours and then ROUND (map) is OVER .... so I don't mind changing to the OTHER SIDE.

 

However in this game, the ROUNDS (maps) are quite longer sometimes and I never switch in middle of the ROUND (map), not in this game, not in others. And I don't know any other game that would force me to change sides in the MIDDLE of a ROUND (map). 

 

I play both sides, but at the very least for full map. Usually a lot more than one map so I can IMMERSE into the command structure of the side.. (no other game I need to play more than one ROUND to FEEL part of the red or blue side)

To me IMMERSION into WAR is what I love about this game... I can go to WAR and NOT DIE! 

I don't care if my enemy is 10:1, that is WAR. I will still fight, I don't care if I die, until last unit available, I will fight and will rally whoever is LEFT.. 

If that means I am IMMERSED into a Defense of Berlin situation against Russians ... GREAT.. what great experience. 

If that means I am IMMERSED into being the Russians in the Battle of Berlin... then GREAT... what great experience.

 

Please do not get me wrong, I salute u for playing the underpop side, but this game is UNIQUE in the experiences it can create. I think it can still be FUN as hell to go 10:1 underpop .. many say .. "no [censored] this I am not going to be target.." where as I say.."I am the Volksturm unit, i am the 15 year old against T-xx tanks in Berlin and I will DIE for Germany".. I may save Berlin odds are 1:100 but I will try. 

To me this is a FANTASY war game.. WAR is NOT FAIR.. WAR is not BALANCED.... war is UGLY and should NOT FEEL FUN when being defeated and underpopulated. 

What I love though.. even in the DARKEST HOURS.. there is HOPE! through HUMAN ACTS we can work TOGETHER and change the day. I have done this on Allied and Axis side and enjoyed every minute of it. 

If you have FUN with WAR.. this is YOUR GAME :) If you want Justice and love Peace time FAIRNESS .. this probably will frustrate you. 

And I know you Xanthus, because I have been in foxholes with you against HORDS of enemy and we have HAD FUN!

S!

 

So what should be done to balance the numbers? Make players realise this is WAR and make them FIGHT harder when losing.. make them fight like the life future of their generations depends on it! Make them IMMERSE 
(while ROLE PLAYING of course)  .. I know sounds like i am on CRACK ... but I actually am not :) TRUE ROLE PLAY GAME is what is awesome and I love about this game. When it makes simple hotel worker come home from work and feel like he is a soldier in 1940 and REALLY feel it after a few hours to actually forget 21st century!

 

PASSION is what this game needs.... it can not compete on any other level (graphics etc etc) but IMMERSION through HUMAN PASSION ... that is what this game excels at. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmw @tatonka

 

I should also add that I consider both of you be exemplary citizens of our community.  I wasn't trying to single either of you out or anything.  I was just trying to use your posts to illustrate a point, one I am growing more concerned about today than I ever have in my nearly 8 years in AHC.  

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's the case that a substantial percentage of players psychologically need to play on the winning side, which they infer is the larger side, then PvP games are inherently unstable. One side always will become larger, in a positive feedback loop, until only the side-committed players are left on the smaller side.

If however that were not the case, and some other mechanism drives population imbalance that doesn't involve a large number of players needing to play on the winning side, there are other balance mechanisms available. Balance actually isn't driven by population, within reason...it's driven by combat power. That's why vets and especially squad-organized vets are much more significant to combat power than lone wolf noobs are.

But in any case, there are ways to add combat power to an underpop side that don't require more population. Many have been suggested before. Changes to cap timers have been done. Virtual artillery could be added with suitable FO mechanics, and additional virtual artillery could be provided to the falling-back side, as the advancing side outruns their slower support units and supply line capabilities. More of a side's most popular weapons could be dynamically added to its spawn lists, to increase the fun-factor for its players.

The goal of course would not be to assure victory for the underpop side. Rather it would be to decouple victory from population, within reason, by making each side equally combat effective.

This of course would only be viable if it didn't disrupt core psychological needs of significant numbers of players to be on the larger side in order to win.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of winning a war is destroying the enemy's morale and their will to fight. This causes the enemy to surrender, desert, or sometimes switch sides. It is something the game simulates very well.  What the game can't simulate are the mechanisms armies use to prevent desertion: military police, courts, punishment; but maybe it can be simulated somewhat. How 'bout this:

Players that play both sides in a campaign are always subject to AI from both sides. OR, and maybe better yet, allow friendly fire ability ( to kill side switchers only) to a special class of officer that can be purchased and/or subscribed to ( at a very premium price! ). Feeeel free-to-discuss. Just imagine the implications. :D 

Losing sucks and isn't fun. That's because this game is a simulation and in reality, Losing sucks and isn't fun. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

...there are ways to add combat power to an underpop side that don't require more population. Many have been suggested before. Changes to cap timers have been done. Virtual artillery could be added with suitable FO mechanics, and additional virtual artillery could be provided to the falling-back side, as the advancing side outruns their slower support units and supply line capabilities. More of a side's most popular weapons could be dynamically added to its spawn lists, to increase the fun-factor for its players.

Sorry, except for cap timers, these kind of changes would be disastrous if they were ever implemented. This would appear to be punishment for the currently winning side (high pop) by giving the losing side (low pop) added combat power via additional weapon systems or early arrival of better weapon systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.