xanthus

What is being done to address the numbers imbalance?

105 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, gavalink said:

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 

Aaaaaaa! Tell me more, this could be fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tac2i said:

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. 

"Punishment" is a psychologically meaningful word. I noted in the prior post that for some players, winning is an important psychological income, and playing on the larger-pop side helps them get more. That's fine...if it's an important part of the game's value for some customers, it's critical that CRS understands it.

So, you don't think the game would be as much fun if the larger side's pop-imbalance advantage was partly offset by other mechanics.

Differential cap timers seem to be such a population-advantage-offsetting mechanic, and you say they're OK but the other two examples I offered wouldn't be. What other kinds of population-advantage-offsetting mechanics might be OK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jwilly: Cap timer differentials (and spawn delays) are already in the game obviously and while it is helpful to the underpop side, it does not seem extreme. Both Allied and Axis players seem to have accepted this 'balancing' mechanic. The awarding of new weapon systems and/or the early arrival of later tier weapons  to the underpop side seems to me very extreme. I do not believe the player base would accept it. I do not believe CRS would expend the resources to code it.

I have seen at least one Allied player infer that the Allies cannot win a campaign without one or more Axis squads switching sides. I do not know if this is true or not. If it is, why is it more folks do not wish to play Allied on a regular basis? It certainly is not because they are disadvantaged by equipment (tanks, planes, ships or infantry weapons). I assume both sides are about equal in HC leadership and about equal in terms of individual player abilities. I have to repeat, most if not all, campaigns are won by the side that can move the map and this almost always means being overpop.  This map movement leads to better player morale and engagement. The opposite is true for the losing side: lower morale and less engagement with the game. I appreciate that players are always discussing ways to improve game play.  This game has been around for about 18 years. Clearly it has staying power. Is there a perfect solution? Probably not. Is there even a good solution? I do not know. Human nature is what it is: winning fun, losing not fun. As expressed earlier, it seems to me a push to make the game essentially unwinnable by either side. The underpop side wants to stop the winning side cold in its tracks through game mechanics that give it greater combat power? If that ever occurs, we probably would be better off playing games like Red Orchestra, Company of Heroes, or Darkest Hour: Europe '44.

In any event, good discussion... 

 

Edited by tac2i
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the players joining but not communicating issue, no doubt CRS is aware of this and the main move to address it is to implement in game VOIP which I believe is being worked on? Evidently, and while still very necessary, text comms and discord aren’t cutting it 

Share this post


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

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

Life is life, life is stat .

 

 

Share this post


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

Aaaaaaa! Tell me more, this could be fun!

Here's how it might work:

When a campaign begins, the first time a player enters the game, the side he enters on is his 'official' side for the duration of the campaign.

If a player switches sides during the campaign, he is subject to friendly fire from both AI and other players for the duration of the campaign.

After a pre-determined time at the beginning of a campaign, maybe 24-48 hours, new players joining the campaign afterward are subject to the following restrictions: 

 

The new player may join the underpopulated side and be under the same terms as the intitial pick your side phase, but if the new player joins the

 

overpopulated side he is automatically subject to friendly fire.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Capco said:

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.  

I do not switch mid-map.  You can look at my stats for verification. 

I will play a side for 2-3 maps then go back to the other side. I do this every so often to keep things fresh. Ive played Axis now for about 4 maps it's high time for a change.........I do it more from myself as I dont want the game to get stale.....which leads to burnout and then not logging in at all.

Edited by bmw
2 people like this

Share this post


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

I do NOT switch mid-map.  You can look at my stats for verification. 

I will play a side for 2-3 maps then go back to the other side. I do this every so often to keep things fresh. Ive played Axis now for about 4 maps it's high time for a change.........

I'm not talking about switching sides mid-map.  I'm talking about picking a side that one calls home.  I know your thing is to go back and forth every 3-4 campaigns (as evidenced in your signature).  

 

I'm also not asking either you or tatonka to make the Allies your home.  Again, I just wanted use your posts to reiterate that the Allies need more vets who call that side their home and play here long-term.  

 

Certain Allied squads have been decimated in the last couple years, the most notable example being AEF.  Not having guys like catfive, jsilec, rans, deride, etc., those core Allied vets, not having them playing on the Allies has drastically reduced our combat effectiveness beyond what a simple numbers comparison would suggest.  I think @stankyuswould confirm this sentiment on AEF.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we were constantly whining and ignored. now we unsubbed

don't need a doctorate in statistics to solve this problem : /

 

the forums turning into a fanboy bubble isn't helping. there are guys that are happy with 2:1 autos and 12 matties vs 3b/232

Share this post


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

I'm not talking about switching sides mid-map.  I'm talking about picking a side that one calls home.  I know your thing is to go back and forth every 3-4 campaigns (as evidenced in your signature).  

 

I'm also not asking either you or tatonka to make the Allies your home.  Again, I just wanted use your posts to reiterate that the Allies need more vets who call that side their home and play here long-term.  

 

Certain Allied squads have been decimated in the last couple years, the most notable example being AEF.  Not having guys like catfive, jsilec, rans, deride, etc., those core Allied vets, not having them playing on the Allies has drastically reduced our combat effectiveness beyond what a simple numbers comparison would suggest.  I think @stankyuswould confirm this sentiment on AEF.  

I got ya.....I understand what your saying.  

catfive, jsilec, rans, deride.......I havent seen them on the Axis recently unless they are playing under a "psudonym".  Did a lot of the Allied regulars just up and leave as in a break?

Share this post


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

 There is only ONE solution.................After this map......I will be playing Allied the next few maps and that should even it out!  :lol:

Good, because I'm fed up with you killing me! lol

Share this post


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

I got ya.....I understand what your saying.  

catfive, jsilec, rans, deride.......I havent seen them on the Axis recently unless they are playing under a "psudonym".  Did a lot of the Allied regulars just up and leave as in a break?

Correct.  Some core guys just don't play anymore.  

Share this post


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

Here's how it might work:

When a campaign begins, the first time a player enters the game, the side he enters on is his 'official' side for the duration of the campaign.

If a player switches sides during the campaign, he is subject to friendly fire from both AI and other players for the duration of the campaign.

After a pre-determined time at the beginning of a campaign, maybe 24-48 hours, new players joining the campaign afterward are subject to the following restrictions: 

 

The new player may join the underpopulated side and be under the same terms as the intitial pick your side phase, but if the new player joins the

 

overpopulated side he is automatically subject to friendly fire.

 

 

 

Food for thoughts +1

Share this post


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

I got ya.....I understand what your saying.  

catfive, jsilec, rans, deride.......I havent seen them on the Axis recently unless they are playing under a "psudonym".  Did a lot of the Allied regulars just up and leave as in a break?

Many of us have played the game for well over a decade, lives change. Jsilec has moved states and has his 2nd kid now, 2 under 5 years old, he's enjoying fatherhood :) Rans like myself has settled into more of  long break. Deride grew tired of the game, same with Pulfer, it's a similar story for most of the original AEF crowd. Personally I'll probably be back yes but the breaks grow longer between each time. I will probably try 1.36 when it is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tac2i said:

@jwilly: Cap timer differentials (and spawn delays) are already in the game obviously and while it is helpful to the underpop side, it does not seem extreme. Both Allied and Axis players seem to have accepted this 'balancing' mechanic. The awarding of new weapon systems and/or the early arrival of later tier weapons  to the underpop side seems to me very extreme.

What about the addition to the game...for both sides...of weapons that only one side had, with the understanding that this would disrupt balance?

  • The British and French had effective HEAT RGs in T0. The Germans didn't have a working HEAT RG until T1, and didn't have an effective one until T2.
  • The British and French had HE/frag RGs in T0. The Germans didn't until T1.5.
  • The Germans had a somewhat effective, limited-usability man-carried HEAT device (what we call a "sapper charge") in T1 or possibly T0.5, and a fully effective one in Tier 2.5. The British, French and Americans never had this weapon type.
  • The French fielded APDS ammo for the 75mm Mle 1897 and for 37mm infantry and tank guns in T0. The Germans fielded APCR ammo for the PaK 36 37mm in T0.5, and in small quantities for 20mm to 50mm cannons in T1. The British fielded APDS ammo for 6 pdr and 17 pdr in T4.5.  
  • The Germans had only HEAT rounds for their Panzerschreck RPAT. The Americans had both a HEAT round and a WP round (anti-personnel and smoke) for the bazooka. The British had, in addition to the HEAT round for the PIAT, a large HE round (same blast as the 25 pdr artillery shell) and a WP round (anti-personnel and smoke).

 Some of these changes might have the effect of making one side or the other more effective in certain ways, which...for players that want to play on the winning side, and want to play a particular combat-type...might affect side choice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tac2i said:

I have seen at least one Allied player infer that the Allies cannot win a campaign without one or more Axis squads switching sides. I do not know if this is true or not. If it is, why is it more folks do not wish to play Allied on a regular basis? It certainly is not because they are disadvantaged by equipment (tanks, planes, ships or infantry weapons). I assume both sides are about equal in HC leadership and about equal in terms of individual player abilities.

No that's not correct, GHC is always trying to attack (even when it's arguably a bad idea) while AHC will sit on defense 18 hours of the day except during US prime.  Some officers will even pull passive-aggressive actions like sit on AOs for the maximum time, or deliberately set AOs to towns that don't have FBs in order to force everyone to defense. That's why the allied numbers and squads withered outside of US prime. Now since their last squad finally bailed on the game they can't push during US prime either. Plenty of times this map the allies had even/overpop during US prime but no EWS on either of their AOs.

 

Axis can win the map just by turtling during the six hours of US prime because the allies won't attack. This is also why the map flips when some axis squads go allied. And turtling is even easier now because the rats have made attacking so hard.

 

Some kind of experience running a MMO guild outside of this game should be a requirement for HC. It's pretty obvious you got guys that are here to play the board game not keep their players hyped and engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution actually has very little to do with the pew pew shoot shoot game we play, very little to do with equipment, tiers, timers and such like. 

 

The solution is the element of the game that was under-developed from the off - character development. It sounds nerdy and too D&D MMORPG for most elite uber Bilton shooters to want to engage with and too geeky for CRS to probably give a second glance to. 

 

But that’s your solution. 

 

 

 

1. Understand why people play games, then 2. design your game to reward the psychological needs that are stimulated when they play. 3. Then tweak the rewards to deliver the type of gameplay the game needs.

 

Three steps. 

Its simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently the PB wants to reenact ww2 instead of play a game.

even if the PB wants to play a game instead of reenact ww2.

 

whenever the RATS defend something, gameplay is far behind reenactment fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, major0noob said:

apparently the PB wants to reenact ww2 instead of play a game.

even if the PB wants to play a game instead of reenact ww2.

That's very zen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, major0noob said:

 

apparently the PB wants to reenact ww2 instead of play a game.

 

If that was true then Axis would always be underpop because they would always lose.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there isn't a desire here to exactly re-enact WWII history.

It's been observed for decades that there is a kind of idealized appeal to the German military...perhaps mostly among individuals who are of partly German extraction.

Many game players want to "re-play" WWII in such a way that the Germans win.

For sure that was a consistent element of the marketing of innumerable models and games after WWII.  It previously applied to toy soldier sets after WWI as well.

Look at the front imagery on the original WWIIOL game-box. What's going on there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a MMO guild that never runs raids or PvP gang roams or holds any regular organized events, then complains about how no one is joining them. Then publicly pleads for charity, but they have the audacity to turn down new players and offers of temporary help, and actually demand that experienced players from other guilds come over permanently. That is not a program for success and it would be thoroughly ridiculed in any other game.

 

Even more there's a pretty obvious example in this game of how to get and keep higher numbers, regular organized ops such as those the axis used to have on Wednesday and Sunday. Everyone seems to be looking for every other reason possible for why numbers could be low though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ops took a huge nosedive with 3min FMS build times. squad night getting invaded by the rest of the playerbase was common, a squad not getting one up was even more common.

back with the inf-FRU, every squad could have their own spawn. we used to have a different squad in every direction.

 

my XO and bunch of members unsubbed from the truck-FMS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.