Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Kilemall

Highpop Advantage NOT Okay

Recommended Posts

Kilemall

In a recent thread there was raging and not surprisingly it was closed.  That's fine, we have to expect that even without the 'promised' forum cleanup coming.

What I didn't like about it was the dismissive 'well sometimes highpop one way, sometimes the other way, that's how baseball go' end response.

That's NOT an acceptable game design goal IMO.

The principle should be that any number of players can get on and win even if they are lowpop.

Some very good pertinent issues were also discussed, which of course got lost in the backwash of the thread closing that directly relate to this principle.

  • Spawnlists matter, lowpop needs to be able to fight back and not just serially bleed to death from highpop superior firepower maneuvered to positional advantage without contest- so historical this or that can step hard depending
  • Highpop with close FMS can swamp towns giving the impression of 'enemy everywhere'
  • Increased AOs means favorably advantaged prior FMS placement means fast switching from one AO to another, the fastest TTB movement possible

Unlike previous situations I don't feel a need to call for drastic change.  A steady hand here suffices.  But tweaks are needed IMO.

Relating to the current situation, I think we are seeing the effects of having more players and more AOs, which is generally a good thing, but is not really tuned to maintain the pop neutrality balance, which is not a good thing.

The AOs are allowing the no-EWS truck placement to occur and then spring two full battles on 2-3 AO times.  This is good, content generation and all, but not so good when the lowpop side isn't good about doing the same or doesn't get a serious cap time advantage and having to struggle just to hold onto those towns, a huge unearned time advantage past a certain point.  That's NOT good content generation, what you want in multi-AO times is 2 AOs AND DOs going, a real barn-burner edge of seat thing where you can pick your content and just a few players' excellent action tips the balance.

The other would appear to be that in single AO times the underpop doesn't get enough cap time to make up for their situation.

I wouldn't increase highpop timers that much nor undercut the multiple player cap bonus.  I think what is needed here is faster recap times for the underpop- possibly use the same slider/calc as now but say add 1-3 people value capping to 1 underpop capper especially in TZ3 outnumbered multiples times.

The other thing is the historical spawnlist paradigm vs.  happiness.  I think both sides need to allow for the other to have some advantage tier in certain categories related to individual equipment capability, asking for exactly the same firepower in all categoreis all the time is counterproductive to accurate modelling and historical feel intro.  But it IS up to CRS to maintain total force viability in spawnlist building and while I see some of that going on, I don't think it's there and seems to me like there is a tin ear towards allowing for effective fighting every tier.

 

Finally, any of this balancing does not mean guaranteeing lowpop success.  That should NEVER be a goal.  The goal should be to allow lowpop to function to build up player interest and hours such that they aren't so lowpop anymore and not drag down other TZs.

I think the Axis is largely earning their town wins, but taking smart advantage of the missed tweaks above with very much the RDP bombing in mind for revenge, and that the Allies most TZs are matching them for effectiveness and ferocity.  The Allies seem to be losing towns more to squad org/leadership mismatch in late prime TZ/early TZ3 where I play and the lowpop TZs where there often are very few Allies playing, the usual comments apply.  The other part is the Allied airforces seem to be absent, that would appear to be an equipment/spawnlist gripe.

I expect the reverse was true during WBS, the Axis was likely getting pummeled with exactly this sort of highpop PLUS superior HC and leader org doing the multi-AO/fast switch plus the RDP bombing,  Just as much a problem that way  going east as west.

 

Pop neutrality should not be a substitute for lack of organization and play, and earned advantage should always be rewarded, just not higher pop as the autowin.  We're getting closer, but with more AOs in play PN  just needs some adjustment.  The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists.

 

But just writing this off to highpop and 'oh well' is not going to reduce the cycle of suck, it will make it worse.

Edited by Kilemall
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** The principle should be that any number of players can get on and win even if they are lowpop.

I disagree with this.  If you are under pop, you should not win to equal play.

20 vrs 30 should never win, unless the 30 are not doing what they're supposed to do.

(This doesn't mean they have to lose - they could put up a fierce defense)

 

Capture timers are atrocious imo, the Enter World bug makes SD double bad - not sure how you can make them any more slower.

It is agonizing to sit in a CP for 7 minutes to try and capture imo.  I won't even do it anymore.

 

Regarding equipment, I don't know what you want more of... axis gets beat in nearly every category.

Allies have best bombers, best fighters, best tanks, best ATGs, best armored cars.... what more gear do you need?

 

Regarding supply, axis very hampered by allied RDP efforts.  If it weren't for server resets fixing axis supply, we'd really be out.

 

tbh, i'm not even sure how axis has pushed back these last few days.  Other than, simple numbers and a lot of determination.

 

 

Your title accurately describes the issue imo - don't allow high over pop to exist in game.

But, I don't know what that limit is, or a good way to enforce it.  And, I think it is good to allow each side some over pop.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

 

If you are under pop, you should not win to equal play.

20 vrs 30 should never win

 

Because a large percentage of players want to be on the winning side, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is a positive feedback loop.

And, because a PvP game is not marketable if the larger population side has an insufficient number of opponents to fight and therefore not enough fighting fun is delivered, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is an assured pathway to business failure.

Such a positive feedback loop must be broken. Customers must be convinced that they'll have equal opportunities to win and to receive tactical-success game-fun whether they're on the larger-pop or smaller-pop side.

Otherwise CRS goes down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The AOs are allowing the no-EWS truck placement to occur and then spring two full battles on 2-3 AO times. 

In what scenario is EWS not being triggered by incoming Trucks?

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

The other would appear to be that in single AO times the underpop doesn't get enough cap time to make up for their situation.

I wouldn't increase highpop timers that much nor undercut the multiple player cap bonus.  I think what is needed here is faster recap times for the underpop- possibly use the same slider/calc as now but say add 1-3 people value capping to 1 underpop capper especially in TZ3 outnumbered multiples times.

Interesting, so you're essentially suggesting that the underpopulated side's recapture should be multiplied to a higher degree so that they can recap faster while keeping the overpopulated capture timer functioning as it currently is?

Let's put that into perspective for a moment.

CURRENT SETTINGS

  • Imbalance is currently 10%
    • Underpopulated side has a 10% faster capture rate
    • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate

EXAMPLE OF YOUR SUGGESTION

  • Imbalance in this scenario is 10%
    • Underpopulated side has a 20% faster capture rate
    • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate

Is this a correct assumption?

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

The other thing is the historical spawnlist paradigm vs.  happiness.  I think both sides need to allow for the other to have some advantage tier in certain categories related to individual equipment capability, asking for exactly the same firepower in all categoreis all the time is counterproductive to accurate modelling and historical feel intro.  But it IS up to CRS to maintain total force viability in spawnlist building and while I see some of that going on, I don't think it's there and seems to me like there is a tin ear towards allowing for effective fighting every tier.

I think @OHM has been doing as good of a job as we could ask of him. Been doing this for awhile now and there's NO WAY we're going to be able to find a balance that everyone appreciates and enjoy - unless it is to their advantage. That muddies the water for us quite a bit and it's a constant dance. The reason we've implemented the historical spawn list was so primarily drive by two factors:

  1. To provide an impartial balancing act, not based on a 1:1 ratio of equipment comparison, but based on deep level research of manufacturing costs. We provide each country with a total balance that they can spend, then we evaluate the cost per vehicle, and we do our best to make sure percentage-wise of equipment is available for certain vehicle types and infantry. 
  2. Historical roll-outs had to be reconciled as there were several out of place equipment roll-outs into the campaign. This basically means we had to accurately reflect history and our tier release timelines.
1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists.

Can you expand on this more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
30 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Because a large percentage of players want to be on the winning side, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is a positive feedback loop.

And, because a PvP game is not marketable if the larger population side has an insufficient number of opponents to fight and therefore not enough fighting fun is delivered, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is an assured pathway to business failure.

Such a positive feedback loop must be broken. Customers must be convinced that they'll have equal opportunities to win and to receive tactical-success game-fun whether they're on the larger-pop or smaller-pop side.

I can buy-in to that thought process, it was the driving force behind the Hybrid Supply mechanism and returning supply across the game world so that the underpopulated side had a fighting chance with or without HC online. This also included resurrecting important game play items like overstock, interdiction, etc. And we went a little further with those who were on defense (predominately those who are underpopulated or lesser organized) so that when an AB was captured, the battle wasn't instantly over.

Share this post


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

*** The principle should be that any number of players can get on and win even if they are lowpop.

I disagree with this.  If you are under pop, you should not win to equal play.

20 vrs 30 should never win, unless the 30 are not doing what they're supposed to do.

(This doesn't mean they have to lose - they could put up a fierce defense)
 

Completely disagree.  I know the issues only too well and the eroding effects on allowing highpop to dictate defense only.  Plus it's bad bad bad when you give up half of your content generation to 'oh well'.

Highpop already has an advantage that is just a given, blowing FBs at will, getting tanks into a town without effective interdiction, extra people to do all the little things.  Underpop needs to be able to recap for effective defense and cap for offense and that means pop neutrality, so those time player advantages are not autowin.  The multi-AO situation just unmasked it.

Quote

Capture timers are atrocious imo, the Enter World bug makes SD double bad - not sure how you can make them any more slower.

It is agonizing to sit in a CP for 7 minutes to try and capture imo.  I won't even do it anymore.

Didn't read what I said closely huh.  I specifically said not to increase the overpop timer, but to give a bonus to the underpop.  The overpop already can load those depots and make them cap fast, and I think they are about right.  PN should never be about ending offense or terminating the ability of overpop to get their firepower in place.  But it has to be a game.  No.  Really.

Quote

Regarding equipment, I don't know what you want more of... axis gets beat in nearly every category.Allies have best bombers, best fighters, best tanks, best ATGs, best armored cars.... what more gear do you need?

I don't buy your thesis except for Axis tanks.  The problem there is again CRS is not pairing the RIGHT way to do their audits, ammo/gun AND armor/damage model audits.  One without the other is an exercise in marketing without the sim results.

You can never get the spawnlists right if things are overperforming or underperforming or you don't break the game down into LR battle, CQB, bombing, CAS, capture etc. and make sure every element is equal opportunity, even if the individual equipment isn't.  It all stems from spawnlists accurately reflecting what accurate modeling equipment can do AND building spawnlists based on the ENTIRE combat biome, including spawning/capture opportunity.  Can't get timers right either, you'll be chasing a ghost.

Otherwise Pak36s are blowing hell outta Matties, near as I can tell the Allied AF is sitting out or certainly not it's normal self thanks to the 190/.50 cal thing, Axis infantry kit still kicks [censored] (as it should), it's not all the Allies way.  Shouldn't be.  But that Tiger is looming rather large when Axis has overpop to do overstocking, and one Tiger overstock is worth several 75 Sherman restocks.  Been down that road with the T0 Allied heavies.  Don't accept your thesis, not this time.

Quote

Regarding supply, axis very hampered by allied RDP efforts.  If it weren't for server resets fixing axis supply, we'd really be out.

 

tbh, i'm not even sure how axis has pushed back these last few days.  Other than, simple numbers and a lot of determination.

 

Axis adjusted under the RDP gun, Allies got sloppy and didn't fully cash in on the RDP advantage, BAD brigade movement at several junctures, and no small part you yourself.  I can tell when you are on, Allies start losing towns.

Quote

Your title accurately describes the issue imo - don't allow high over pop to exist in game.

But, I don't know what that limit is, or a good way to enforce it.  And, I think it is good to allow each side some over pop.

Whew, you may like the title but I would NEVER EVER EVER accept a Spawn Queue limit to break the ability of people to play the side they want, particularly squads and adhoc player groups.

I'm for allowing as many people on a side as want to play it, it just shouldn't give unearned advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milo

What about limiting the number of forward mobile spawns?

Share this post


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

What about limiting the number of forward mobile spawns?

The mobile spawn logic is driven by missions, we'd have to look at limiting the number of missions to a town or add in some other (new) logic. I'm not sure that is the answer as I don't want to interfere with the players experience. And to conclude, I really don't think we have a sufficient number of mobile spawns for this to be an issue at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

The only pop imbalance that matters is local pop imbalance.

Everyone playing equally well, some level of imbalance will always win (that that ratio is I don't know, but it it true at some imbalance level.

Local imbalance is fine, however, it is how attacks won in RL, attack the enemy with a larger force, profit. This is where I will bang the same drum I always bang. The "MAP" level of the game, the "operational level" with Garrisons, BDEs, and all the "supply" stuff allows for a tool to adjust balance.

1. Increase the time for BDEs to resupply losses (making BDES more fragile over some time interval), and make BDE movement times more realistic (maybe add more BDEs if needed).

2. Reduce Garrison spawn a bunch, but perhaps the resupply is substantially faster than BDE resupply.

3. Limit AOs based on relative side population. Ie: if Allies have 2X Axis pop, the Allies can only set AOs where 2 BDEs can attack 1 BDE (a Garrison counts as a BDE in this case, even though it is in fact much smaller). The imbalance rounds UP, so if a side is OP by 2.1X, then they have to attack at 3:1 BDE strength. Alternately, the required balance is not 1:1 with side imbalance, but tuned for gameplay. 1.5X OP might be 2:1 AOs, 1.75X might be 3:1, etc, whatever works best in testing.

Those three things mean that the OP side can still roll towns, but in ways that operationally makes sense. The defenders being rolled? Since the resupply is much slower for BDEs, the losses you inflict on the matters. They could roll a few Garrisons with the same BDE, but the BDE is a wreck by that point, ripe for counterattack.

 

In addition to those "operational level" ideas, I have floated a spawn based limitation (can with with the ideas above, or alone):

Relative balance of attacker vs defender on an operational level determines the ability for the OP side to spawn at any spawn facility that is NOT part of the town the BDE is located in. So attackers can always spawn in their "home" town, and the FBs they own. So if 2 BDEs attack 1 BDE, and there are 10 defenders, 50 attackers can attack from the FB if they like, but when they cap the spawnable, they cannot spawn there until the number of attackers in that AO drops below 2:1 (20 players in this case). Ditto any FMS they might set. If the attack started with 4 trucks alone, they could all set FMS, but after 20 guys spawn in, any further attack spawning must come from the FB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K
2 hours ago, tater said:

3. Limit AOs based on relative side population. Ie: if Allies have 2X Axis pop, the Allies can only set AOs where 2 BDEs can attack 1 BDE (a Garrison counts as a BDE in this case, even though it is in fact much smaller). The imbalance rounds UP, so if a side is OP by 2.1X, then they have to attack at 3:1 BDE strength. Alternately, the required balance is not 1:1 with side imbalance, but tuned for gameplay. 1.5X OP might be 2:1 AOs, 1.75X might be 3:1, etc, whatever works best in testing.

Not sure if you're aware as it's a fairly recent (ish) change - The number of available AO's is based on the lower pop side.  Given the population fluctuations that occur during the course of any time period, I'm not sure that tying AO placement to supply situations would be very feasible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n8r

how much players on an underpopped side for 3 AOs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K
5 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What I didn't like about it was the dismissive 'well sometimes highpop one way, sometimes the other way, that's how baseball go' end response.

That's NOT an acceptable game design goal IMO.

It's not a game design goal, and not intended to be dismissive, but it is reality.  In general players who were logging on, in generally equal proportion, have stopped doing so.  Whether that's some taking a break, or swapping sides, or coming off of a play-break or some combination of the 3 is to be determined.  

The only way to get around it, even with 'pop neutrality', is to actively restrict people from either logging in, or spawning in when 1 side is over-pop.  That is a solution that almost no-one wants.    

Quote

The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists. 

What in the almost 19 year history of the game would lead you to believe that this would ever occur?  Players have been arguing over equipment capabilities/buffs/nerfs/availability since somewhere around mid-afternoon CST 4 Jun 2001, and most likely will continue to for perpetuity.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kazee

quit making so many changes, the game play is excellent right now...go back over one year and campaign victories are pretty much even.

tired of hearing one side has an advantage over another...its not true. sometimes you pwn sometimes u get pwned, always been that way and always will be...stop making so many changes

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kazee

sometimes HC AO placement costs a side towns even if they are OP and have tigers

just 2-3 days ago axis lost Turnhout, Ciney and Neuf all over a period of 3-4 hours because we had people place poorly thought of AOs 

an AO on Oostmalle from Turnhout when allies owned Baarle and Geel...just terrible

AO on Bertix from Neuf with allies owning Libramont and having two flags there...again terrible

And attacking outta Ciney haha 

Those are human errors and it doesnt matter what equipment u have over or if u are overpop

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec

Lmg fix affected axis heavily but i think they have handled it well just like the 3h/pak38 in opening tier has been handled well by the allies...2 recent changes that back in the day would have caused ww3 in the barracks but its been ok....honestly i think something that can compete with tiger camo kit would not be a bad idea even if its 17lber/M5 atgs i dont think anyone expecting the firefly or achilles but some m10s wouldnt hurt...i know the “historic” crew might get their undies in a bunch but that will happen no latter what you do....i always lean on the side of better gameplay and sincerely hope we dont get more big changes because lowpop is lowpopping

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84
21 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I don't buy your thesis except for Axis tanks.  The problem there is again CRS is not pairing the RIGHT way to do their audits, ammo/gun AND armor/damage model audits.  One without the other is an exercise in marketing without the sim results.

Stu's can 1 shot Pz4D to the frontal armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bus0
10 minutes ago, redoak84 said:

Stu's can 1 shot Pz4D to the frontal armor. 

4D can 1 shot all Allied armor frontally except Matty in tier0

Stu is tier1 vs tier0 armor and you need a well placed shot to do it, 4D can also 1 shot a Stu.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

tbh, i'm not even sure how axis has pushed back these last few days. 

Not sure how axis pushed back?....do you read other peoples posts and use deductive reasoning or just wait to hear what suits your narrative?....wbs over+tiger tier+lowpop=Ridiculous TOM flip in 9 days after a consistent allied tom advantage by less then 5% for tier0/1 over a 2 week span....ao count might start dropping a lil bit if axis insist on turtling up during high pop like yesterday for hours (mostly while they were overpop) which was depressing to see...fun factor gets reduced heavily when 1 side starts getting used to seeing map move without having to attack during large portions of the day and can just sit back and defend without losing....isnt over yet i hope allies get off the mat this week leading into the weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84
2 hours ago, bus0 said:

4D can 1 shot all Allied armor frontally except Matty in tier0

Stu is tier1 vs tier0 armor and you need a well placed shot to do it, 4D can also 1 shot a Stu.

I'm not say it's wrong, I'm just saying up until the tiger and stugG, the allies have an armor advantage. I'd be surprised if a pz4d can one shot a chars frontal armor, but I have no experience in that. The matty is practically indestructible. I think I'm managed to kill one once with 50mm shots to its turret ring, but german early armor is nothing to write home about. I find that the Axis team has become very adept at destroying allied tanks as soon as possible with satchels and atgs because once they start to pile up we get overwhelmed.

Edited by redoak84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
2 hours ago, redoak84 said:

Stu's can 1 shot Pz4D to the frontal armor. 

And I expect vice versa, not sure what the point is here.

That Stu 37mm is NOT your 1940 German 37, it's more like a more powerful 2-lber or Pak38, arguably better.  Can't hang with the traditional Tier2 green G-tanks, but as a Tier 1 speedy light tank morphing into a recon/short range TD tank later on, it has it's place.

The real butthurt would be the US 37mm ATG deployed to FMS.  THAT would be a difference.

3 minutes ago, redoak84 said:

I'm not say it's wrong, I'm just saying up until the tiger and stugG, the allies have an armor advantage. I'd be surprised if a pz4d can one shot a chars frontal armor, but I have no experience in that. The matty is practically indestructible. I think I'm managed to kill one once with 50mm shots to its turret ring, but german early armor is nothing to write home about. I find that the Axis team has become very adept at destroying allied tanks as soon as possible with satchels and atgs because once they start to pile up we get overwhelmed.

IMO Axis tanks will play more like tanks with the full armor audit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84

The game should probably just go with 2 tiers and be done with it. Early war and late war. I do not see how OP can be controlled because the obnoxious SDs and slow cap timers I've been encountering do not dissuade people from playing specific sides. It might be healthier for the game to completely lock a side when overpopped, so that people don't become obsessed with one particular side. It might also provide people with better perspectives, and make the game less personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n8r

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 4/7/2020 at 0:34 PM, XOOM said:

In what scenario is EWS not being triggered by incoming Trucks?

To my knowledge there is still a discrepancy between truck-only EWS and everything else.  I know it got moved out from 400m but TBH it's not clear to me what the exact mix is. 

Nonetheless from a time opportunity analysis POV any of those allows for an overpop force to setup and saturate towns.  Which is not bad in itself, again see content generation, but with multi-AOs which presumably we want all the time when population warrants, the 2-4 AOs all the time thing may be exposing a few reaction cracks in overpop/underpop. 

I'm not suggesting we back off FMS setting in the slightest and if even pop well too darn bad if a side doesn't react to getting D up, just that cap timers may need to be revisited in case of serious pop discrepancy in the light of multi-AO fast switching.

Quote

Interesting, so you're essentially suggesting that the underpopulated side's recapture should be multiplied to a higher degree so that they can recap faster while keeping the overpopulated capture timer functioning as it currently is?

Let's put that into perspective for a moment.

CURRENT SETTINGS

  • Imbalance is currently 10%
    • Underpopulated side has a 10% faster capture rate
    • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate

EXAMPLE OF YOUR SUGGESTION

  • Imbalance in this scenario is 10%
    • Underpopulated side has a 20% faster capture rate
    • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate

Is this a correct assumption?

 

That is the idea, yes.  I think we are on the outer envelope of  acceptable overpop time cost re: gameflow, so faster underpop capping is the thing given that we don't have coding for anything else but SD and that's probably maxed out too.

Note what I suggested, same calc except underpop gets counted as 1 to 3 extra people on capping.  That's cause when you are underpop fewer of you are available to get to and stay alive capping and so overpop gets more time advantage since they can get more in reliably, often at multiple facilities at once.  That play shouldn't be neutered as overpop needs to be able to capitalize on it's strengths, just more of an offset cause of multi-AO meaning overpop gets to switch entire towns and get to caps much more easily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

 

On 4/7/2020 at 0:34 PM, XOOM said:

I think @OHM has been doing as good of a job as we could ask of him. Been doing this for awhile now and there's NO WAY we're going to be able to find a balance that everyone appreciates and enjoy - unless it is to their advantage. That muddies the water for us quite a bit and it's a constant dance. The reason we've implemented the historical spawn list was so primarily drive by two factors:

  1. To provide an impartial balancing act, not based on a 1:1 ratio of equipment comparison, but based on deep level research of manufacturing costs. We provide each country with a total balance that they can spend, then we evaluate the cost per vehicle, and we do our best to make sure percentage-wise of equipment is available for certain vehicle types and infantry. 
  2. Historical roll-outs had to be reconciled as there were several out of place equipment roll-outs into the campaign. This basically means we had to accurately reflect history and our tier release timelines.

Can you expand on this more?

I'm not bagging or holding this on Ohm, near as I can tell it's a whole team thing where he's being given what are IMO faulty premises to build spawnlists on, which practically guarantees player complaints over and above the usual griping about being pwned some way they don't like.  The principle to follow here is to make what the game needs, not what people want.

I'm assuming the objective is to provide for a dynamic spawnlist valuation tool so that you can add new models in without going through some two year cycle of spawnlist fiddling.  We haven't had this many models coming in this fast in literally decades, and a finger in the wind and eyeballing is too much to ask of anybody, so I would like to think I 'get' the impetus of this standard, along with what I suspect from other comments is marketing.

Nonetheless, doing it off of historical research of industrial costing is just utterly absolutely WRONG. 

I'm sure this is the sort of thing the DoD would do if they were building the WWII force with today's analysis tools, and could be that the research that went into this could make for a good specialist book on WWII industrial output vs. results.

But last I checked we aren't building or playing WWII_Industrial_Production_Online, we are playing a competitive game where we have to create even opportunity entertainment spawnlists, not what each country was trying to do historically, create unfair pwnlists. 

Costing based on production history just gives you a baseline for what could be produced expensively or readily per year, it doesn't do the hard work of sussing out how this stuff matches up under all conditions, which includes varying logistics, terrain, player usage/loss patterns, opportunity action, time to move/flank a battle vs. capture, CQB/capture vs. long range, camping, etc. etc.  In short the combat biome driving the player experience.

Historical production also recreates how production for x weapon was driven by combat needs of a particular designed formation from fireteam/squad on up to platoon (infantry or tank) or larger, special troops such as paras or combat engineering, etc.  but does NOTHING for the way people spawn and use the stuff.  Formations have NO meaning in our game other then supply names, brigades as movable lists and nature of the list.

It's less an org sim and more a combat artist palette with it's own logic driven by the capture, spawning and firepower/maneuver combat biome.

Tigers for instance are awesome beasts and in the hands of a professional Heer with proper flanking tanks and infantry, can be absolute terrors.  However in our world we do not have either tank OR infantry density such that the Tiger flanks are protected like the real thing, hence it is vulnerable to ATGs, hero inf, sneaky Shermans etc. that would almost NEVER get a chance to kill it except in a VERY painful frontal arc.

We just AREN'T in a real WWII combat battlefield so even if this production analysis is trued up with RL lethality/results, it just does not, can not, jibe with what the players experience in the game.  You can have ah-HA moments where battle or force movement 'feels' right, but game battle and real battle is a mismatch of valuations that won't get the needed job of even spawnlists done.

So what should spawnlists be built on? 

Major categories of game play related to elements of the whole biome. 

  • AT capability-optics range and penetration. 
  • Armor level to defeat same, and possibly negative points for 'soft' targets
  • CQB infantry. 
  • LR fire infantry. 
  • AT infantry
  • Special infantry bonus for build, FMS and FB destruction. 
  • General infantry capture and 'sneak' ability. 
  • MG mounted on armor vehicles. 
  • Soft vehicle MG and cannon. 
  • HE capability, armor gun and airplane. 
  • Energy rating for airplanes, low alt and high alt. 
  • Camo.
  • Audio signature (silent infantry and guns get bonuses, quiet ACs and trucks get a little less, louder vehicles get no bonus)
  • Movement rating urban/road vs. countryside

Then true up each category for like spawnlists for all 4 countries per list type (Garrison, Inf Brigade, Armor Brigade, HQ).  What counts here are the matchups, so that each element has a possibility of play and a possibility of counter even if the opposition has an 'early' advantaged unit.  Avoid the Hardest Campaign paradigm of entire play categories not in use or suppressed.

This can also be a good tool for analyzing terrain matchups to spawnlist capability.  Some forces may be better in cities or on flat terrain vs. hilly long range fire, that should be able to be assessed.

Be sure to keep the Alpha units like Tigers, Matties, unopposed air entries, etc. down to low numbers when there aren't a lot of killers for them.

By all means do historical intro whenever possible, but always check against play value and not alienating an entire interest area for a week or more.  We SHOULD have learned that during the HC Choice/RDP Tier delay mechanic, don't recreate already learned lessons.

Then, when game elements such as spawn paradigms, terrain coloration affecting camo, visibility issues, weapon/armor/DM audits, ammo choices, bugfixes etc. change the performance of one or more units, reassess the point values and adjust the spawnlists to reflect new GAME reality, not historical this or that.

I'm sure there is more to this subject, but this is a starting look as to what I mean.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 4/7/2020 at 10:42 AM, Kilemall said:

The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists.

On 4/7/2020 at 0:34 PM, XOOM said:

Can you expand on this more?

I mean that in order to have not red vs. blue but as historically accurate weapons as a commercial game can allow, that players need to be tolerant of intros that have an advantage in a tier in a super tank or air element and not advocate for combinations of things that crush out a whole play element for any side at any time, and that the spawnlists should follow suit on keeping each element in play and competitive even as variety and historical goals are pursued.

For instance I was quite verbal about the CS Matties.  The idea wasn't to crush out those, but to have an understanding among spawnlist builders that those things are about 80% of what makes a Matty terrifying to Axis players, the armor and camping of all soft things even if it can't kill another tank, and to have enough elements that are either tanks, sappers and/or AT guns that can kill them available so if the Axis players can get near the CS Matty it can be killed.  My particular beef was that 88s couldn't get out of the spawn to do anything if just one infantry comes in to camp, and 4 wasn't enough for that situation much less even as many Matties as originally deployed.  As it happens the Pak36 with its too much spall audit has balanced things out, but I don't think players finding and using questionable damage model outcomes is a really good controlled way to true up spawnlists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...