delems

Fix the pop, fix the game?

35 posts in this topic

Shouldn't we at least try a pop solution of actually keeping the numbers somewhat balanced?

I'd go with a 3 to 2 ratio at start.  Lock the in game world so the over pop side is not allowed more than this ratio.

This still gives them a 50% advantage, huge.

When that is shown to not have bad effects, try 5 to 4, this still allows 25% more pop.

 

Plus, not only will sides be more even, we can remove SD.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the obvious questions (to me) would be: 

1.  What happens to the players who won't play for the other side?

2.  What happens to the players, who due to being new or not being very good at the game yet, prefer to spawn in on the side that is overpopulated to lessen the risk of being noticed as new or lacking in-game skill(s)?

3.  What happens to the squad who organizes a squad night, only to find that part of their squad either cannot play, or will be forced to play the other side?

 

Please note I'm asking despite having experienced some nasty underpops on a regular if not constant basis thus far in 167.  Wouldn't the player who won't play for the other side simply not log-in?  Wouldn't the new or unskilled players do the same?  Wouldn't a given squad not only have a failed squad night, but be less likely to bother planning the next one?

As Allied CinC, I certainly wish Pym's unit had stayed on the Allied side for 167.  The same sentiment goes for Dwalin's.  Given the unhinging of the numbers, I even made a direct appeal to the members of AEF who had decided to play for the dark side this past campaign.  Between Pym's unit, Dwalin's unit, and the significant number of AEF folks who swapped sides combining with the axis players coming back from 'vacation', the numbers ratio this campaign have been nasty for the Allies.  And still, I am not in favor of forcing folks to play for a particular side.  I have seen compelling arguments for forced side-balancing of in-game populations for the respective sides, but none can guarantee me or the rest of the community that a player forced to play the side he/she doesn't want to play for won't simply find something else to do.  Pulling numbers out of my hat, I'd rather be outnumbered 3 to 1 with a healthy in-game population, than have an unhealthy in-game population (or risk thereof), and have even numbers.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never be able to force players to do anything , but quit .

Healthy balance needs to be through some reason for players to play on the underpop side .

That reason might need to shift according to imbalance , such as increased points when playing Underpop or getting weapons that that don't normally have access to etc . Some form of carrot . 

If the numbers where high enough a slight imbalance would not be noticed , but it IS NOTICED .

 I have no answer for it either .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never be locked out of your side or from playing.

If you play with the side that has 31, and you're 31st.. you can't spawn into the game world (enemy has 20 spawned in).

SOON as an attacker dies, you can then spawn in. (it will be 29 to 20)

So, it's not like you can't play; you just can't spawn in until someone dies or another enemy logs in.

Players die ALL the time, first player dead means 10 seconds for you to spawn in before that dead player can try to spawn back in.

 

If  it's 100 to 20, than ya, 70 players will be in the chat room; 30 in game world fighting the 20.

When any of the 30 die, 1 of the 70 will be able to get in game.  Mind you that is 5 to 1 and probably never occurs in game.

Go look at the player pop chart, I see only 4 times the rule would even be in effect, and it looks for less than 4 hours of the day.

 

And again, who cares about squads when there is no game to play?  All the squads in the world won't matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I logged into the Allied Discord channel this past Sunday (Aug 18) at 12PM US Eastern and there were a total of eight (8) others logged in. When I logged out a short time later, there were a total of 11. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really been in game much but still visit the forums and look at the webmap: Population : LOW even during prime time.  Cant bode well for the game.

Share this post


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

You will never be locked out of your side or from playing.

If you play with the side that has 31, and you're 31st.. you can't spawn into the game world (enemy has 20 spawned in).

SOON as an attacker dies, you can then spawn in. (it will be 29 to 20)

So, it's not like you can't play; you just can't spawn in until someone dies or another enemy logs in.

Players die ALL the time, first player dead means 10 seconds for you to spawn in before that dead player can try to spawn back in.

 

If  it's 100 to 20, than ya, 70 players will be in the chat room; 30 in game world fighting the 20.

When any of the 30 die, 1 of the 70 will be able to get in game.  Mind you that is 5 to 1 and probably never occurs in game.

Go look at the player pop chart, I see only 4 times the rule would even be in effect, and it looks for less than 4 hours of the day.

 

And again, who cares about squads when there is no game to play?  All the squads in the world won't matter.

 

Given the screaming fits you unleash on just a little pop neutrality, I can't imagine what you would do if this was actually in play and you got more then 30 SD regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be no SD.

And I'm willing to bet someone dies every 30 seconds or sooner, allowing me to spawn in :)

Game should not allow over 3 to 2 odds.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice is simple, when you are underpop, spawn in on the other side and give them no one to shoot at.  When they get tired of having no one to shoot at they will either quit or start spawning the other side.  It is obvious to me who controls the imbalance and makes the decision to continue the imbalance, they just refuse to see it.

Stop being camped by 4:1 odds, make it 5:0, things will change.

Share this post


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

You will never be locked out of your side or from playing.

If you play with the side that has 31, and you're 31st.. you can't spawn into the game world (enemy has 20 spawned in).

SOON as an attacker dies, you can then spawn in. (it will be 29 to 20)

So, it's not like you can't play; you just can't spawn in until someone dies or another enemy logs in.

Players die ALL the time, first player dead means 10 seconds for you to spawn in before that dead player can try to spawn back in.

 

If  it's 100 to 20, than ya, 70 players will be in the chat room; 30 in game world fighting the 20.

When any of the 30 die, 1 of the 70 will be able to get in game.  Mind you that is 5 to 1 and probably never occurs in game.

Go look at the player pop chart, I see only 4 times the rule would even be in effect, and it looks for less than 4 hours of the day.

 

And again, who cares about squads when there is no game to play?  All the squads in the world won't matter.

 

See the source image

Share this post


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

You will never be locked out of your side or from playing.

If you play with the side that has 31, and you're 31st.. you can't spawn into the game world (enemy has 20 spawned in).

SOON as an attacker dies, you can then spawn in. (it will be 29 to 20)

So, it's not like you can't play; you just can't spawn in until someone dies or another enemy logs in.

Players die ALL the time, first player dead means 10 seconds for you to spawn in before that dead player can try to spawn back in.

 

If  it's 100 to 20, than ya, 70 players will be in the chat room; 30 in game world fighting the 20.

When any of the 30 die, 1 of the 70 will be able to get in game.  Mind you that is 5 to 1 and probably never occurs in game.

Go look at the player pop chart, I see only 4 times the rule would even be in effect, and it looks for less than 4 hours of the day.

 

And again, who cares about squads when there is no game to play?  All the squads in the world won't matter.

 

Meaning no offense, 'you will never be locked out of your side or from playing....'   is a tomato tomahto argument.  I have no firm numbers, but dozens of Allied players during 165 logged off via saying on side chat that it was specifically due to the 30 second spawn delay they were suffering from every time they died.  In your proposal they might be last in a line of 100 people to get back in-game, which presumably will take far longer than 30 seconds.  Thus they would be left with 3 choices:  join the underpop side, sit for who knows how long without being able to spawn back in, or log off.  Too many are going to choose option #3, thus I would not support this idea, while respecting the perspective behind the idea.

I care about squads, and perhaps it's a chicken and the egg argument, but the demise of the squads can be directly linked to the lessening of in-game population, so I'm not sure how continuing to not care about squads, even in an effort to preserve the game, is going to do anything but more harm.

Build the squads back up, and the balance issue will take care of itself to a large degree.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, TZ3 dictates the campaign outcomes. Been that for 80-85% of the time since 2005.

"They come at night to cap the map." (c)

The biggest moves on map - this one isn't different than the last one - are made in this TZ. 

Why can't we just balance numbers in that particular TZ? I don't know. One bench side hides while the opposite one shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well an interesting idea was to force f2p to underpop side. Never tried ... it is dead  now. I do generally agree with delems. Campaigns are becoming a farce in a way. Horribly imbalanced .... it builds to grossly imbalanced as campaign goes on for human nature reasons.

 

I kinda believe that you need to side lock per campaign. Pick your side. It is a CRS fantasy that people play the underpop side that is getting rolled simply to avoid SD. Where, actually the opposite is true ... many players will take the SD just to shoot fish in the barrel and die far less anyhow. At least worth a try .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest problem as i see is people lacking in game the want or need to fight for the side there on, stat whores who help kill an underpop side worse than just being underpop, dont watch anything dont use comms seen to maney times 3+ players on an underpop situation camping a efms while enemy caps cp's in town they dont mark nor cover they want there stats better than yours and most of the ppl that gripe are the stat whores.

Play for the side you are on to your best.

been on recieving end of massive underpop maney times and still capped and won towns, organisation and willing to play as a team, good comms between hc down to the guy that just started is key.

Thats something CRS cant change thats player attitude.

What i hope for is in game comms not discord or any 3rd party stuff something CRS can watch keep ppl from playing both sides same time, Im checking there supply great for saying im cheating, heard hc on both sides talk how they monitor other sides chat .

Lame crap

its not CRS that controls that thats players ethics and fact they suck i dont care what there K/D is, easy to be top just kill yer 2nd acct over an over.

I do think as choad says lets give side lock a try for a campaign it is worth a shot.

Share this post


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

Meaning no offense, 'you will never be locked out of your side or from playing....'   is a tomato tomahto argument.  I have no firm numbers, but dozens of Allied players during 165 logged off via saying on side chat that it was specifically due to the 30 second spawn delay they were suffering from every time they died.  In your proposal they might be last in a line of 100 people to get back in-game, which presumably will take far longer than 30 seconds.  Thus they would be left with 3 choices:  join the underpop side, sit for who knows how long without being able to spawn back in, or log off.  Too many are going to choose option #3, thus I would not support this idea, while respecting the perspective behind the idea.

I care about squads, and perhaps it's a chicken and the egg argument, but the demise of the squads can be directly linked to the lessening of in-game population, so I'm not sure how continuing to not care about squads, even in an effort to preserve the game, is going to do anything but more harm.

Build the squads back up, and the balance issue will take care of itself to a large degree.

 

S!

I am going to have to side with Delems on this one. Something has to be tried.......................... Anything. 

 

And while I agree with most every point you make, your ignoring some other ones. 

People get tired of not even having a chance, getting constantly rolled and camped. They say screw this and log off. And then the one side is even more underpop. These people get every-bit as PO'ed as the players waiting "x" amount of minutes to spawn in.  And they quit and unsub too. 

This is the one most crucial thing that will be the death of this game. 

I think Delems has a good idea, but I would add a few things to it. Tie it to total population of a side. 

For instance: (using this campaign as an example where allied are normally severely under pop in TZ3) 

If the underpop side has a total of less then 10 players on then lock the ratio at 3-2 max

If the underpop side has more than 10 but less than 20 lick the ratio at 4-3

once a threshold of 30 or more players is reached, get rid of any side lock. 

 

Now these numbers can be tweaked, but you get the idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've provided quite a few ideas on this over the years that I think would go a long way of resolving the issue without adding gamey, ad hoc tricks.  A side lock of any kind is a gimmick.  That said, I think there is merit to Nc0g's adaptation where the total pop is factored in before Delem's proposal kicks in.  I think the problem with gamey gimmicks is that there are always unintended gamey consequences.  But, if the thresholds were reasonable so that they disappeared altogether after, say, 30 players is on, I'm not sure there is much room for too many unintended consequences to sprout up.  But that's the thing about unintended consequences: they are a bear to predict.

A better way of resolving the issue is to try to ground the game in even more realism.  In this context, that means giving more things for people to do instead of shoot each other--and for the overpop side, they would have EVEN more things to do, and thus by natural player behavior, players would disperse to do the greater number of things, easing up the concentration in one area--ie, the camping of an AB, etc.

For example, make the overpop side more vulnerable, and thus force it to commit defenders to more locations.  The FB for a side that is significantly overpop might require half the satchels to bring it down.  Even MORE overpop, make it so that only 4 can take down the whole forward base, vehicle and infantry spawn both.  You could make it so that its only for the FB connected to the overpop's AO, or you could make it for any and all FBs, suddenly allowing the underpop side to have a FB advantage and thus get a spawn.

Well, you could say that even on this, a very underpop side might not be able to spare even one guy to go and kill the FB.  But the solution, ultimately, is to create even MORE vulnerabilities.  For example, you could have it so that the underpop side always has double the number of AOs to place as the overpop side, which if added to the glass jaw FB's, means that the underpop side could open up a new front--drawing away concentrated overpop players--relatively quickly and potentially in several places at once, if the underpop side snaps up spawnables in two different towns.

We already have faster cap timers for the underpop side.  You could expand on that even more, so that in ADDITION to the above, you speed up the capture radically.  So, yea, maybe the underpop side gets hammered and rolled over taking a town, but maybe the underpop side snags TWO towns while losing the first town.  The overpop side learns its lesson fast, and the next time, the roll doesn't happen so fast or overwhelmingly because the overpop side has dispersed more guards to 3-5 other towns where it has now become possible for the underpop side to get a spawn.

True, these are gamey tweaks in their own way, but then again, CPs and FBs are gamey.  But in the real world, armies had to do more than just shoot at each other.  They had to defend supply lines, gas up tanks, do repairs, etc, etc. 

Which brings me to the idea of incentivizing moving gear from one town to another, for example, by train.  (Trains!) Trains, even if run by AI, which carried supply from one place to another, would be cool no matter what.  Cooler still if you could spawn an AA gun on one.  :)  But my point is that let's say you had your supply trains, but for the overpop side, after they take a town, the new town does not automatically get garrison supply.  No, the supply train has to leave from the rear town and arrive in the captured town before the garrison supply is shown in stock--and planes, tanks, etc, can shoot that train while en route.   Which means, yes, you guessed it, the overpop side would have to commit soldiers to defend it, diluting the number available to roll the next town.

If its deemed worthy of an idea to keep 24/7 and not just during pop imbalances, then you can slow down the trains for overpop sides, or make it so that after the train is destroyed, it takes longer for it to try again; an intrepid bomber on the underpop side could keep an attack from ever materializing unless the overpop side dedicates 3-5 times the number of underpop players required to stall it in the first place. Ie, make it so 1 underpop guy can ruin the overpop's day, but it takes 5 overpop to root him out.

Another quick example:  over the years the idea of a 'medic' has been discussed.  If the pop is balanced, both sides have the medic in the list.  But if there is a big imbalance, only the underpop side gets one, potentially extending their supply (eg, a medic in the bunker bandaging up the lone SMG defender X number of times), while it drops from the overpop's spawn list.

What I'm talking about here is a philosophy, a different way of viewing the problem altogether.  Just increase the number of things that people have to DO, which in real wars they actually would have had to DO, and then give speed advantages to the underpop side.

Hopefully, the net result is going to be reduced big swings in times of big pop imbalances but also increased player retention because it will be more fun to 'role play' even more aspects then we have now.

Each new thing to DO becomes another tool in the tool box for gamey manipulation, should it prove necessary.  :)  But in the long run, I would think that under this philosophy, it would come to be more immersive and less gamey as time went on, hopefully resulting in a bigger player base altogether and (can we dream?) the disappearance completely of gross imbalances at any time of day.

 

Edited by pfmosquito
typos
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Another quick example:  over the years the idea of a 'medic' has been discussed.  If the pop is balanced, both sides have the medic in the list.  But if there is a big imbalance, only the underpop side gets one, potentially extending their supply (eg, a medic in the bunker bandaging up the lone SMG defender X number of times), while it drops from the overpop's spawn list.

I have been trying to think of ways to get people to check the flag buildings, I potentially think it's a bad idea to check a building with a flag on it if you're already wounded, but I had been thinking about an Aid Station in these buildings.  You're wounded you go check the Bunker or the Flag Building and stay there long enough and your injuries are healed to a percentage that would be determined (you've been wounded you would never be 100% until you respawn.)   Add the Ammo Cache and it incentivises going and checking the flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im beginning to think sidelock might be a good idea.  Pick a side for the map and your stuck with it.  This way there is a least some hard numbers on each side and timers, and SD and whatever can be adjusted to reflect the "active" numbers per side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted in another thread that low pop get the ability to blow FB with less charges required . Nothing stops an Attack faster then no FB . 

That would force the OP side to actually defend an FB which in turn means less attackers  in town.  

I think that would be a great start. 

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would be more inclined to AO lock, not side lock, AO numbers of troops to be very even, within a few %  , including air and sea units.   as people die other people waiting to join that AO may do so, that way people can play their desired side, there is heaps of other stuff to do on the map thats no in the AO area

Also loose the outdated way we capture, captures should be when one side has noting left, everyone is dead, so the supply wins the battle of a town.  ( this would also bring back HC tactics and player alike)

Edited by grunt768

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't keep em balanced if players keep swapping between sides, for instance.  Green tags.

Green tags don't know what side to play, so they swap sides.

And also we can't keep em balanced because:

 

If PLAYERS on both sides want to keep side switching like: Axis to Allied, Allied to Axis, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I brought up the idea that at beginning of each campaign , before one spawns into the game world the player gets 3 choices for that said campaign. 

1st choice , Play Allied ONLY

2nd choice , Play Axis Only

3rd choice , Play underpop only. No matter the situation on map , it may be Allied or Axis .  Now if one chooses option 3 he /she gets spawned into the underpop side , if the balance shifts while the player is in game , that player would be the only one that could spawn out and without any delay switch to the other side, but only if the balance shifts , but he is not forced to do so unless the player wishes to do so.

In option 1 or 2 Once you made your choice you are sidelocked for that campaign .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the major  prob with  side pop is that the pop can swing in a minute, esspecialy if one side is changeing targets

it can also be "gamed" by multi owned acounts being in game on other side but not doing anything just to cahnge the # balance.

campain locsklikes dre21's  unfortianly maybe only way at to assist in the pop problem.   (if possible give it a map or 2)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play other games, don't realy have the time. My grandson plays about every ww2 themed game available. Now what I've noticed with him is he waits a queue until he can spawn. Seems to me he waits way more than we do with SD. So I guess a option might be setup a queue system where you could only spawn the underpop or wait until sides balanced to within x%. To me that would suck but maybe I'm just old and out of the loop?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my idea again:

1. 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.

     A. 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

2. 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:

     A. The new player may join the underpopulated side and be under the same terms as 1 and 1A,  But if the new player joins the overpopulated side he is automatically subject to friendly fire as in 1.A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.