delems

Please finally fix over pop ?

25 posts in this topic

No reason every player of this game has to suffer SD and 300% capture penalty, because of some tz3 population imbalance.

Fix the imbalance, please, finally, after 18 years of this game, just fix it...

Ridiculous 100s of players for 20 hours a day have to not have fun, so 10 players can have fun for 4 hours........

No game or sport would ever allow more than 2 to 1 odds, why do we?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello delems how are you today?

First of all I must point out that "Over Pop" or "In-game Population Imbalance" and the issues presented within/as a result of TZ3 are NOT related. To assert they are is misleading at best. Yes within TZ3 there are times of In-game Population Imbalance BUT In-game Population Imbalance is NOT limited to ONLY TZ3. As you indicate:
2 hours ago, delems said:

No reason every player of this game has to suffer SD and 300% capture penalty, because of some tz3 population imbalance.

The side experiencing the SD and the 300% capture penalty has fallen into the category of being over pop at that point regardless of time zone. This condition can occur within any time zone.

The biggest issue presenting within TZ3 is that of low population and how the low population time zone impinges on the map state for the other 2 time zones. Simply put, map movements resulting out of TZ3 tend to be larger than those resulting out of TZ1 or TZ2.

As you should see, In-game Population Imbalance and TZ3 issues are unrelated. Asserting they are is an unsustainable starting premise for any discussion.

 

Fix In-game Population Imbalance. This for WWIIOnline would be “the Pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow”. As you do state:
2 hours ago, delems said:

No game or sport would ever allow more than 2 to 1 odds, why do we?

Well why does WWIIOnline permit such a thing? It is very simple. WWIIOnline permits “choice”.

In a sport or game there are specific limits on who can participate. Each side can only be comprised of a fixed number of players and they are only permitted to enter the limited sized arena for a fixed period of time.

In football a sport, each side is made up of 10 players all occupying the pitch for 40 minutes per half for a total playing time of 80 minutes.

In World of Tanks (and the like) a game, 10 (I think) players per side are permitted in the sandbox arena until one side has captured the flag, for however long that actually takes. Each prospective player joins a list and is assigned a place in an upcoming matchup. Once a side has captured the enemy flag that match up is completed and the after the battle results are posted. Players can leave but no additional players can be added for the duration of the matchup.

In WWIIOnline a player can select a side to play for. The only restrictions are the potential initial side lock and the SD you have already mentioned. They then select a mission or possibly even create one, choose a weapon from those available to them and then enter the world. The world existed before they entered and will exist after they leave, all things being equal. Their actual time in the game world is only limited by their ability to avoid being killed, requiring a re-spawn.

If SD is unacceptable then being outright prevented from entering the game world due to current In-game Population Imbalance would be unbearable. Most solutions presented include variations of that methodology. Other solutions involve removing players ability to choose by forcing them onto the underpopulated side. The unfortunate results of that methodology is, they choose to play something else. All players are players and their very presence enhances the WWIIOnline experience. No playing player is a bad outcome for WWIIOnline, regardless of their subscription status.

As to a Fix for “In-game Population Imbalance” well without removing players ability to choose practically speaking there are very limited options. Also worth considering, if WWIIOnline did remove players ability to “choose” that would be a quantum shift in the character of WWIIOnline itself. A good or bad shift would be open for some serious debate. Without changing the character of WWIIOnline potentially the better course would be to mitigate the immediate effects of being on the wrong side of In-game Population Imbalance. One form of mitigation that has been implemented is the “300% capture penalty” you have also mentioned. From your posting this too seems to be unacceptable.

The ultimate quandary, possibly the reason that “after 18 years of this game” it’s still causing forum discussions at least. There is certainly no reason why something shouldn’t be “done” to address the issue. The real sticking point is “How” to address the issue, so it continues. . .

Cheers
James10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowpop rules the game its a never ending issue and its effects last into other tzs for sure....i have seen huge momentum shifting type rolls in euro tz have zero effects on lowpop but a big cutoff type of roll in lowpop is devastating to all tzs and gamepop....i hope a solution is found that can fix that tz and not hurt gameplay in other tzs with whatever fix is necessary 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pop imbalance is a local issue, not a mapwide issue, and occurs regardless of total population. Spawning/respawning/MSPs should be tied to relative brigade/garrison strength attacker vs defender. Posted a lot on this over time, guess no one agrees.

Low pop is bad when there are attacks that cannot adequately be defended against for lack of population. There is a minimum number of players required to defend (or attack, actually). One to cap/recap every CP, one to guard each as well.

Here's another idea to fix rolling during any period of imbalance, and during low pop. Note that all the following ideas can have a setting that adjusts them like SD based on imbalance, and possibly based on either server pop, or even (more ideally) population within an AO/DO.

Require that CPs be guarded, else they switch back to original (town) owner. During normal pop periods, this timer might be set quite long, like a CP has to be unoccupied for 20 minutes to start reverting (could either just revert, or it could act as if it is being capped). Yeah, this kills moling of large cities (which should never have been a thing, anyway, yipee).

So you could cap a CP, then move to the next, but after X minutes (adjustable based on local pop/imbalance/etc) they swap back to the town owner. The more imbalance there is, the faster this happens, to the point where it might even happen faster than SD, so in a hugely overpop situation, a single defender might kill someone guarding a spawnable, and even if the defender trades, the CP will fall before the attacker can respawn from that linked depot.

Again, all adjustable.

Such a system might make it so that during low pop periods only small towns can be captured.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, james10 said:

The side experiencing the SD and the 300% capture penalty has fallen into the category of being over pop at that point regardless of time zone. This condition can occur within any time zone.

True........but it ALWAYS is a factor in TZ3.

 

8 hours ago, james10 said:

As you should see, In-game Population Imbalance and TZ3 issues are unrelated. Asserting they are is an unsustainable starting premise for any discussion.

Umm no, wrong.  Unbalanced or overpop in TZ1 or TZ2 has less of an impact the TZ3 where the difference can be significant enought to make a big swing.

Edited by bmw

Share this post


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

Umm no, wrong.  Unbalanced or overpop in TZ1 or TZ2 has less of an impact the TZ3 where the difference can be significant enought to make a big swing.

Exactly. You won't see 2:1 and above for hours outside TZ3 crushing the gameplay of the vast majority of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without having to count local population, how would my idea above work (we know the server tracks balance, and works SD, so this should be fairly easy, right?

I'd say that there should be a constant rate at which CPs revert, regardless of pop. Side A owns a town, Side B caps a few CPs, then the mole doing that leaves, goes AFK, whatever. Even during max pop, the CPs if untouched by an attacker should revert in maybe an hour. Yeah, a mole can run between CPs they have capped and keep them owned. Means a defender can watch a CP for the ei to come back---they have to.

Population imbalance would then decrease this revert time for the underpop side. If the imbalance is 2:1, that CP revert might be down to a few minutes (what are the cap timer rules, use them as a model to adjust this). At 3:1+ the CP revert time might be nearly instant (5-10 seconds)---anyone capping must stay and guard.

Perhaps it could even go to negative time, with a bonus for multiple guards. Ie: 1 guard and it reverts anyway (albeit not instantly), 2 or more become required to guard as imbalance increases a great deal.

There was an example posted here a week or two ago about some tz3 time recently when 2 were defending against 24. 12:1 odds.

Under the facility revert idea, at that level, it might go to where 3-4 are required just to hold a capture without it quickly reverting. The lone active defender (I'm assuming 1 is in the bunker) could then throw a nade into a CP, and if they kill even 1 attacker, the CP might start reverting (acts exactly like it is being recapped, except the only way to stop it is to add new guards til it reverses). This gives defenders in low pop who are massively outnumbered at least some chance, even if it is just holding.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tater said:

Without having to count local population, how would my idea above work (we know the server tracks balance, and works SD, so this should be fairly easy, right?

Nothing anything currently has worked obviously.  Honestly, the only thing that will work is having the server in "maintenance" during the peak OP TZ3 time.  No one wants auto side balancing so the only other alternative is "maintenance"

Yeah you may ostrisize the 20 people that play TZ3......BUT would you rather lose the TZ1 or TZ2 people who are the main source of income?

Share this post


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

Nothing anything currently has worked obviously.  Honestly, the only thing that will work is having the server in "maintenance" during the peak OP TZ3 time.  No one wants auto side balancing so the only other alternative is "maintenance"

Yeah you may ostrisize the 20 people that play TZ3......BUT would you rather lose the TZ1 or TZ2 people who are the main source of income?

Did you read the suggestion you are replying to? Nothing like what I have proposed has ever been tried as far as I know, and it seems at first blush that my idea might actually help. It would not stop grossly OP play during low pop from being a thing, and it would not stop rolls, certainly, but it would slow them, and it would potentially make taking larger towns/cities nearly impossible during low pop.

It could also be combined with operational limitations.

Ie: if the server OP is 2:1, then no AOs get set unless the attacking side has at least one town facing the AO target with 2X the units (attacking BDE+Garrisons vs defending). Any more than 2X, and you need more than 2X, 3X and you need 3X, etc. a 2 AB town with 2 BDEs attacks a 1 Garrison town with 1 BDE, and that AO can be set of the attacking side has 2:1 odds on the server. If they have 3:1 online, then they need to only attack that 2-unit town from a 3 AB town with 3 BDEs, and so forth.

This can be fixed/mitigated with some rules changes (or it's worth it to try).

 

Share this post


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

Ie: if the server OP is 2:1, then no AOs get set unless the attacking side has at least one town facing the AO target with 2X the units (attacking BDE+Garrisons vs defending). Any more than 2X, and you need more than 2X, 3X and you need 3X, etc. a 2 AB town with 2 BDEs attacks a 1 Garrison town with 1 BDE, and that AO can be set of the attacking side has 2:1 odds on the server. If they have 3:1 online, then they need to only attack that 2-unit town from a 3 AB town with 3 BDEs, and so forth.

This can be fixed/mitigated with some rules changes (or it's worth it to try).

First.....trying to get that even coded...forget it. 

Second......even if it were an "easy" code it wont happen. It just wont. So many people have had so many ideas.......the only guaranteed way to stop it is to have the server offline in that period or auto side balancing which will never happen for good reason.

 

Share this post


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

First.....trying to get that even coded...forget it. 

The operational one is clearly a longer pole as it doesn't seem to exist at all.

The idea of CPs reverting seems easier, however, and it could be tied to existing SD code. Regardless, they're serious problems---low pop map swings, and large OP issues---and it's worth some effort to fix them.

7 minutes ago, bmw said:

Second......even if it were an "easy" code it wont happen. It just wont. So many people have had so many ideas.......the only guaranteed way to stop it is to have the server offline in that period or auto side balancing which will never happen for good reason.

So the only fix is to shut people out from playing, even if trying some other solution to test was "easy?" That seems less than productive, honestly.

You're basically saying that they should shut the game down then (since you list 2 solutions that you admit will never happen)?

Share this post


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

You're basically saying that they should shut the game down then (since you list 2 solutions that you admit will never happen)?

No......I said the only guaranteed solution is server "maintenance" during TZ3.  Cant have cut off's, towns taken with no opposition and whathave you if the server is "offline" now can you.

Auto balancing while a concept other games have adapted will never happen here, but that too would assure even sides during any TZ.  Any other attempts have NOT worked.......and some attempts have run people off.

If there was a real solution then great but in all the years here....especially the last 5 years overpop cant seem to be fixed even with the current "fixes" already in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** the only guaranteed way to stop it is to have the server offline in that period or auto side balancing which will never happen for good reason

False, lots of other options.

I again submit: lock the in world pop to no more than 2 to 1.

Not the side.

There can be 50 axis on, and 4 allies.   BUT, there will only be 8 axis IN game world against those 4 allies.

When one axis dies, the other 42 will vie for who gets in.

All 50 axis players will be at map chatting etc, and 8 of those will be in game.

 

Share this post


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

 

There can be 50 axis on, and 4 allies.   BUT, there will only be 8 axis IN game world against those 4 allies.

When one axis dies, the other 42 will vie for who gets in.

All 50 axis players will be at map chatting etc, and 8 of those will be in game.

 

What will the 42 axis players be chatting about? How will they 'vie'? And what if there aren't enough smgs or chardonnay for them?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

What will the 42 axis players be chatting about? How will they 'vie'? And what if there aren't enough smgs or chardonnay for them?

Most likely about how crap it is that that can't spawn...... but that's just my guess

Share this post


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

As if there are ever 50 axis players any more! LOL

really? axis TOM is higher than allied TOM this campaign, this is not over - besides no more 4:1 odds for axis during no pop rolling 10 towns a night there is a plenty of chances to win for axis still - please don't rage yet

Share this post


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

No......I said the only guaranteed solution is server "maintenance" during TZ3.  Cant have cut off's, towns taken with no opposition and whathave you if the server is "offline" now can you.

Auto balancing while a concept other games have adapted will never happen here, but that too would assure even sides during any TZ.  Any other attempts have NOT worked.......and some attempts have run people off.

If there was a real solution then great but in all the years here....especially the last 5 years overpop cant seem to be fixed even with the current "fixes" already in the game.

Taking the server offline will have negtive effects as well, as people that tend to trickle in will be put off waiting for the numbers to reach the point that the server would be brought "back online". Where population might normally be suffice at 8 am, it will eventually then get pushed back to 8:30 am, then 9:00 am then 9:30 am, etc etc.  Net effect will be a slow death. Better solution is to lock game play to FB only, no town caps in low pop situations. 

Another possibility is to only allow one AO for both sides, give them a two hour window, and it the side with the active AO fails to capture the town, the opposing side now has the AO for two hours. This will at least slow the roll, because once the OP side essentially soft caps a town, they have a two hour wait until they can do it again. Chances are a good majority of the OP side will either log off, or begin to attack FB's, essentially auto balancing the sides, or at least make it easier for a few to defend.  Server will not need to be taken down, and the restrictions are lifted once Low pop is overcame. also takes a lot less coding than any of the other mentioned "fixes". 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 7:18 PM, delems said:

I again submit: lock the in world pop to no more than 2 to 1.

Not the side.

There can be 50 axis on, and 4 allies.   BUT, there will only be 8 axis IN game world against those 4 allies.

When one axis dies, the other 42 will vie for who gets in.

LOL......people already hate spawn delay.......now you want a world delay? Good Luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 2:52 PM, bmw said:

If there was a real solution then great but in all the years here....especially the last 5 years overpop cant seem to be fixed even with the current "fixes" already in the game.

Have they tried every suggestion? Have they tried any of mine? Address my specific ideas, but don't suggest that my ideas won't work because other ideas that are not even remotely similar have been tried, but have not worked.

What has actually been done?

Spawn Delay.

Game side entry delay.

Cap timer adjustments based on balance.

 

The above the limit of what I am aware of, if I'm missing dozens of other ideas that have been turned on in my absence, do tell. Has CP ownership ever been set to reverse to the town owner if left unguarded after some time, pegged to imbalance? How about that, but with sometimes multiple guards required? This concept forces attackers to sideline multiple players guarding, so during low-pop periods attacks on larger towns might not even be possible at all---say you needed 2 guards per CP because of massive imbalance, and that required more people than you even had, then that attack would not be possible. This could interact with the existing options, SD, and cap timers. Cap timers would basically be redone such that the town owner gets added in as an anti-capper all the time. Currently whoever is trying to cap has no need of clearing the CP, the existence of an enemy moves the capture bar. I would change this to compare the CP attacker vs defenders, and move the bar only if the attackers outnumber the defenders. 1 capper in a CP with 1 guard upstairs in normal play would have to clear the CP for the bar to move. This new system would add an invisible enemy to every CP in town for the UP town owner side (again, depending on imbalance levels). So if one side is 2:1, then maybe all CPs get

When the server is roughly balanced, the town owner contribution becomes 0, so that without guards, CP ownership is as it is now. When one side gets OP above some level, the town owner contribution increases such that with no guard, it acts as if it is being recapped. If one side becomes even more OP, the system adds an additional, invisible capper to every CP in the town. Now the OP attacker needs 2 guards just to stop the bar from recapping. If a defender chucks a nade in and kills one guard... the CP starts recapping by itself. The defender need no go in, they can try and cut, instead. Course they might still want to enter and check, because if the OP side becomes less OP, the second invisible capper goes away, and the lone guard is now enough to arrest the auto-recap. Note that the UP side can attack towns normally, no guards required (still a good idea, obviously).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

The above the limit of what I am aware of, if I'm missing dozens of other ideas that have been turned on in my absence, do tell.

Oh there are many others.....most of which wont happen cause it just cant be done. 

Share this post


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

Oh there are many others.....most of which wont happen cause it just cant be done. 

Can't be done can't be done.

My idea above is based on things already tracked. The only solution you can discount as not workign to solve the problem are those that have actually been tested, otherwise your answer must be "I don't know." You state that there are 2 solutions (only), but neither will happen (I agree that neither of those will happen), but we canot say that other mechanisms cannot solve the problem, or at least mitigate it. To know this, some testing needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 3:17 PM, matamor said:

really? axis TOM is higher than allied TOM this campaign, this is not over - besides no more 4:1 odds for axis during no pop rolling 10 towns a night there is a plenty of chances to win for axis still - please don't rage yet

I meant 50 at any one time logged in... never suggested axis had less TOM or OP, just would love to know when these 50 guys are all logged in game together and playing axis. I logged in on Saturday, at around 14:00 central euro time, axis had 1 solitary mission, and nobody spawned in on it, just 2 red dots..... prior to Hardest Campaign Ever we always had 2 AOs at that time on a Saturday, now we dont even have 2 missions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the map is rolling the other way, there are often many allies on in one AO or DO compared to usual.

An observation: It's more fun when there are many people in an AO/DO who are on your side. This fun factor is independent of the number of enemies at a certain level---where too few enemies is actually worse than too many.

This goes to the notion of minimum numbers being required (which is the bare min to guard what you cap on attack, or guard what you hold on defense), but it's far more than that. The point CP nature of the game is awful, and with low pop it feels far more like a giant, random terrain death match. When there are MANY on your side, there is a de facto actual holding of ground that doesn't exist with lower numbers.

10 v 10? better than 5 v 5, but still meh. 20+ v 20+? starts feeling interesting. With lower numbers it's all infiltration, and porous awfulness. I think a lot of my solutions are to make the lower pop game feel better (more like higher pop).

What's the cutoff for just 1 AO? Also, is 1 AO 1 AO per side? If so, if there are 10 people on each side, and each has an AO, that's 5 per battle, else switching back and forth. Gameplay would be 1000% more fun with 10 v 10 than 2x 5v5. I'm not sure there should be more than one battle at a time at all unless the pop exceeds 20 v 20 to be honest, and the large cities... they need to be even smaller segments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.