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
6 hours ago, redoak84 said:

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.

I would argue that the SD and slow cap timers were never going to get people to side switch even though some did, nor should it ever be construed or a goal to achieve.  You are more likely to lose subs rather then have people be forced to play a side they don't want.  Problem is your side lock solution would do the same thing if it's Uber11ty Squad night and they can't get in.

I'd recommend playing the other side if for no other reason then intel on how the equipment is usable or not, what your side looks like from the enemy side, yes perspective, and an appreciation of the guys you fight, cause it's fun to kill people you know who will take it personally- both your home side and the other side when you go back.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
On 4/7/2020 at 3:27 PM, B2K said:

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. 

The point is that if the OP side is rolling, and they always will be, they should do so in a way that makes OPERATIONAL (supply) sense.

Right now, OP can have 1 AO (if that's a thing), and they will still win if they are OP enough, and they could attack multiple BDEs with a single Garrison and win, 50 guys in a depleted garrison will wipe the mat with 10 defenders in a 3 AB town. (extreme boundary value, but you get the idea).

The goal is that since there's nothing we can ever do to stop OP, we force the OP side to use their units in a way that makes sense at the map level.

Having the same 50 guys (5:1 odds) attack a Garrison with with 5 BDEs—they still win, but they SHOULD win. If the sides were even 5 BDEs should beat 1 BDE, right?

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky

Reduce the contested-to-ABs-hot timer for the underpop side. Always advocated that, always will

The hardest thing about being hugely underpop is that attack becomes impossible, creating a spiral of retreat and defeat, which leads to a roll

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CanArt

Well, problem still is there, wont be putting dime in before its adressed

Share this post


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

Reduce the contested-to-ABs-hot timer for the underpop side. Always advocated that, always will

The hardest thing about being hugely underpop is that attack becomes impossible, creating a spiral of retreat and defeat, which leads to a roll

That's the biggest goal of Pop Neutrality, and I don't understand people not wanting that, even if they think your suggestion or something else different then my PN is better.

Share this post


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

That's the biggest goal of Pop Neutrality, and I don't understand people not wanting that, even if they think your suggestion or something else different then my PN is better.

It should form part of the vision of the game - how the game plays and the broad archetypal experiences players have in typical scenarios. We've all been there, in grey or green, and know exactly what the obstacles and challenges are. The game mechanics surely have to be designed around the typical, predictable, known environments that the game creates, in order to mitigate against the worst player experiences and likewise encourage and replicate the best player experiences.

Set the vision, design the things you can design (ie mechanics, as opposed to behaviours that you can't) in pursuit of the vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84

The % of cap and bunker timers should be relative to the % of OP. OP should also account for afk if possible. Adjusting timers by 10% each way regardless of %OP would be creating unfair conditions in itself. I don't know how the current timers are set, but when the Axis just becomes OP, and can't imagine by much, the timers become ridiculous.

Edited by redoak84

Share this post


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

The % of cap and bunker timers should be relative to the % of OP. OP should also account for afk if possible. Adjusting timers by 10% each way regardless of %OP would be creating unfair conditions in itself. I don't know how the current timers are set, but when the Axis just becomes OP, and can't imagine by much, the timers become ridiculous.

What to you is an acceptable highest level, medium level, please define a calc.

As Xoom's question attests, they do much better with a concrete example and intended effect/outcome that they can actually code to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84

I would start with something quite linear. For example 1% OP results in a 1% capture differential. The entire issue with the OP argument is that the players have no visibility into %OP, which creates assumptions and vague statements. The first thing CRS should do is show population ratios in game. I've always found it odd that they don't show those ratios in game.

Edited by redoak84

Share this post


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

I would start with something quite linear. For example 1% OP results in a 1% capture differential. The entire issue with the OP argument is that the players have no visibility into %OP, which creates assumptions and vague statements. The first thing CRS should do is show population ratios in game. I've always found it odd that they don't show those ratios in game.

They published how they do the SD/cap timer calcs re: ratios.  If I am to understand your point, I believe it is set to what you would call a 2% capture differential- 1% OP yields 1% more time for OP to cap and 1% less time for UP to cap. 

But keep in mind that overpop espeically in multi-AOs can more readily get multiple infantry to capture points to speed up the capture.  Which is great, again overpop should have some advantages inherent in their numbers, but it opens up a gap for underpop with the more AOs we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

OP superiority isn't linear with relative balance, and it's not linear with different total player populations.

There is a minimum number of players to ever mount ANY effective defense. Defense is the critical bit here, because functionally attack is also defense—of the bits you just capped. So if you need 1 per CP, and 1 per AB, plus 1 to defend (a floater to move to different CPs, maybe blow an FMS), then that's the min defense, and also the min offensive force I suppose (not that people guard what they cap, lol).

So there are a few different types of OP advantage, one where the sides are both decently manned, and one has some % more (unsure what starts to really matter). Another where one side grossly overmans the other, and a third where one is OP at some level, but the UP side can't even defend a town adequately.

That's why I still think the operational game should be used to better advantage in balance. Allies have 2:1 advantage? Force them to attack with 2:1 supply odds. I want the resupply cut so that at least the attackers can get hurt in a meaningful way. Hurt enough, and they have to stack more BDEs into the advance (leaving the flanks weak for counterattack). I'd be inclined to dump SD in this attack case. Maybe save SD for the case where one side literally can't defend adequately for lack of players.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84

I still think the first step would be to include population ratios in game. This would help alleviate the spectre of OP. I remember one time the Axis were being outplayed by the Allies, and people were complaining about OP, but KMS pointed out that the Allies were OP by only 5 players. 

 

Changes need to be made in such a way that their effects can a observed relative to the previous standard.

Edited by redoak84

Share this post


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

OP superiority isn't linear with relative balance, and it's not linear with different total player populations.

There is a minimum number of players to ever mount ANY effective defense. Defense is the critical bit here, because functionally attack is also defense—of the bits you just capped. So if you need 1 per CP, and 1 per AB, plus 1 to defend (a floater to move to different CPs, maybe blow an FMS), then that's the min defense, and also the min offensive force I suppose (not that people guard what they cap, lol).

So there are a few different types of OP advantage, one where the sides are both decently manned, and one has some % more (unsure what starts to really matter). Another where one side grossly overmans the other, and a third where one is OP at some level, but the UP side can't even defend a town adequately.

That's why I still think the operational game should be used to better advantage in balance. Allies have 2:1 advantage? Force them to attack with 2:1 supply odds. I want the resupply cut so that at least the attackers can get hurt in a meaningful way. Hurt enough, and they have to stack more BDEs into the advance (leaving the flanks weak for counterattack). I'd be inclined to dump SD in this attack case. Maybe save SD for the case where one side literally can't defend adequately for lack of players.

 

Very true on the linear part, but I don't know about jimmying with supply based on pop except possibly for total pop, i.e. it takes less time and units killed for lowpop to either camp and finish a town or for defenders to kill off attacking supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dustyhc
On 4/8/2020 at 11:25 PM, Silky said:

Reduce the contested-to-ABs-hot timer for the underpop side. Always advocated that, always will

The hardest thing about being hugely underpop is that attack becomes impossible, creating a spiral of retreat and defeat, which leads to a roll

Great idea Silky. I think this could be implemented fairly easily using a ratiometric constant relative to the "Hot" timer. It seems simple enough to at least give it a try for a couple of weeks. 

Share this post


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

I still think the first step would be to include population ratios in game. This would help alleviate the spectre of OP. I remember one time the Axis were being outplayed by the Allies, and people were complaining about OP, but KMS pointed out that the Allies were OP by only 5 players. 

 

Changes need to be made in such a way that their effects can a observed relative to the previous standard.

Ok, it already IS proportionate.  You can agree or disagree with the triggers, and I think there is something about the coding or values where player activity is likely screwing with the experienced delay vs. local battle they are experiencing or clues in sign-on/total easily visible pop, or whatever the calc/sample time is, but it's already proportionate.

Might want to think about the consequences of published numbers popped up on a player display.  I could see some ugly effects in forums AND ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redoak84

At this point I would like to know when OP side timers are triggered. How many players over cause side delays. Also, I'm curious about CRS's take on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
On 4/10/2020 at 7:53 AM, Kilemall said:

Very true on the linear part, but I don't know about jimmying with supply based on pop except possibly for total pop, i.e. it takes less time and units killed for lowpop to either camp and finish a town or for defenders to kill off attacking supply.

I wasn't really messing with supply, other than saying that resupply of lost units in BDEs should take much longer.

The idea there is that the defenders that are getting rolled due to OP issues at least feel like their "to the death" defense is actually harming the enemy. It's bad to get constantly rolled, but it's worse when you know the next town will be attacked and lost in exactly the same way, and eventually you log in disgust (exacerbating the problem).

If resupply of combat losses was slowed, and the OP side had to stack BDEs to attack, then you knock out that best class of tank, you know it's gone for a while, unless they move a fresh BDE in (with more realistic BDE movement times). If they move fresh BDEs in from other parts of the front, it leaves other areas open for counterattack when the pop is more even. Make the supply move forward faster, but not resupply.

Ie: BDEs A and B attack a town, taking it. They win, but at some loss of units they care about, say they lose 10% of units they most like. Those BDEs move forward so that they can attack the next town (they need those 2:1 odds to set an AO). Similar result, but the defenders at least suspect the attack, and do some more damage to the favorite armor of the enemy, and of course any attack is gonna burn SMGs at CPs. The attacking BDEs are still mostly full of supply, but less of the stuff that they really want (perhaps they should have rationed the use of "best" tank and SMGs?).

The defenders are getting rolled, but they know they are harming the attackers, and if the pop changes, those depleted BDEs will be in deep trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

The question is when is OP triggered ? 

Is it players in game? 

Players logged in ?

Players hanging out in the spawn in screen?

I think it should be players that are only in game , and if not moving for a certain amount of time ( like a Hour)should also not be counted to eliminate the players with 2nd accounts logging in just to sit in a bush for hours in, without any movement.  Also goes for setting a AO then hide one guy in a bush or building just for the sake of drawing people to that city .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

The question is when is OP triggered ? 

Is it players in game? 

Players logged in ?

Players hanging out in the spawn in screen?

I think it should be players that are only in game , and if not moving for a certain amount of time ( like a Hour)should also not be counted to eliminate the players with 2nd accounts logging in just to sit in a bush for hours in, without any movement.  Also goes for setting a AO then hide one guy in a bush or building just for the sake of drawing people to that city .

Over/Under population is determined by the number of players spawned into the game world.  The game counts 'spawned' players at certain intervals, then adjusts the associated AO's, Pop Related Timers, and Pop related delays.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
24 minutes ago, B2K said:

Over/Under population is determined by the number of players spawned into the game world.  The game counts 'spawned' players at certain intervals, then adjusts the associated AO's, Pop Related Timers, and Pop related delays.   

And it's imperative to note that the number of AO's being read is relative to the underpopulated sides population, no longer is it focused on a global read - which is fundamentally improved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
3 hours ago, dre21 said:

The question is when is OP triggered ? 

Pretty much as soon as there is an imbalance. We do this very rapidly now whereas in the past there was a certain threshold you had to meet. @OHM and I agreed that it would be better to start the balancing act up front and as early as possible, not wait until it reached a critical level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

What difference does the total AOs make? If one side is massively OP, then boo hoo, they are forced to serially roll towns 1 at a time?

I don't see how that changes anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What difference does the total AOs make? If one side is massively OP, then boo hoo, they are forced to serially roll towns 1 at a time?

I don't see how that changes anything.

Well, it makes a big difference. Usually one side is only massively over-populated for a little bit of time, and during this time if we can reduce the number of rolls and give the defenders a fighting chance, that will encourage underpopulated side players to stay online, buy them enough time to conduct some important initiatives like either holding depots, capturing forward bases, stealing towns out from underneath the attackers or what ever potential option may exist (blowing a bridge, interdicting incoming supply, I can keep going).

Share this post


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

Well, it makes a big difference. Usually one side is only massively over-populated for a little bit of time, and during this time if we can reduce the number of rolls and give the defenders a fighting chance, that will encourage underpopulated side players to stay online, buy them enough time to conduct some important initiatives like either holding depots, capturing forward bases, stealing towns out from underneath the attackers or what ever potential option may exist (blowing a bridge, interdicting incoming supply, I can keep going).

Do you guys have the analytical tools to quantify how often those important initiatives occur? Could you, eg look at the last 2 weeks of play data, understand when the periods of mass OP have occurred and then see how many FBs or towns the underpop side managed to capture or steal? I ask because my gut feeling is that it is very rare for the underpop side to achieve these small victories.

If the vision for the game is that the AO mechanic delivers the opportunity for a morale collapse to be averted by the underpop winning the small battles, then perhaps other mechanisms should run in alignment with that strand, for example bunkers hot from the AO going live, reduction in the bunker hot timer, change the FB damage threshold for underpop so it's easier to take a FB when majorly underpop, like reduced EWS distance for underpop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catfive
On 4/9/2020 at 7:25 AM, Silky said:

Reduce the contested-to-ABs-hot timer for the underpop side. Always advocated that, always will

The hardest thing about being hugely underpop is that attack becomes impossible, creating a spiral of retreat and defeat, which leads to a roll

Capping an AB before you own all depots means any enemy link depots immediately become available with full depot lists of SMGs which an overpop side will flood from and lib, recapping their AB last to bounce your AO. How does that benefit an underpop side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...