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.

kareca

CRS must block side switch after campaign starts

Recommended Posts

kareca

only that...

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Won't do any good.

Only solution (after 19 years) is to lock in game pop to no more than 2 to 1.

Even that might be too much, 3 to 2 is prolly much better.

Allows for over pop, but not extreme over pop.

Sad to think, after 19 years of allowing extreme over pop, a solution hasn't been implemented yet.

Out of 7 billion people and 100s of countries....... name me ONE sport or game that allows over 2 to 1 odds.  Name me ONE that allows 3 to 2 odds.

Share this post


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

Won't do any good.

Only solution (after 19 years) is to lock in game pop to no more than 2 to 1.

Even that might be too much, 3 to 2 is prolly much better.

Allows for over pop, but not extreme over pop.

Sad to think, after 19 years of allowing extreme over pop, a solution hasn't been implemented yet.

Out of 7 billion people and 100s of countries....... name me ONE sport or game that allows over 2 to 1 odds.  Name me ONE that allows 3 to 2 odds.

Quote

 

This I can agree with, excepting the mechanism, whatever it is, needs IMHO to make a distinction between one side ceasing to play, and a side-inbalance caused by "everyone" deciding to play for one side at campaign start, or 1st log in for that campaign, whichever occurs later.

It'd also need to be weighted to allow squads to remain on one desired side, unless hugely out of whack.

It's the predictable daily inbalances, especially in TZ3 which are the real problem, as that TZ is where mechanics to moderate numbers are historically least effective. IMHO of course.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

You pay your money, you play the side you want.  Maybe side lock for FTPs only.   

But I suspect any type of side lock will result in a loss of players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

A someone else commented elsewhere - I forget who - if it's a case of losing a couple of dozen or so people in TZ3 (and I don't believe for one moment it would come to that), and have a "within limits" population and that improves the game experience of hundreds of player at peak-time, and dozens of other players in TZ3, then that's assuredly worth it.

Note that we're not talking about the natural inbalances that occur when one side has about given up, we're talking about the people who log on at the same time of day, every day, week in and week out, when their side is already greatly over-popped relative to the opposition beyond an acceptable ratio. Quite what that ratio should be I don't know 3:2 has been mentioned, which at first blush sounds a sensible start-point for peaktime at least. It might be the case that the ratio for side-balancing needs to change through the TZ's. Only play-testing will answer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pickering4

I disagree with being locked in.

 

I fly mostly ground once in a while but I hunk I have like 15 ground missions in the almost month and a half of gaming.

 

I wouldn't resub if I was stuck on one side. If I fly for 5 days with 20 other guys shooting down single planes from the other side it's not fun. So I switched allied and now fly with some other people and have more targets and tougher fights. 

It's more fun. Next map I'll see which way the wind blows if I have more targets flying axis because there are 30 allied pilots on I would be annoyed to not be given the chance to change and help the side that needs the extra pilot. 

 

To put it into context the side pop thing was allied when I switched. Just no pilots on the allied side so we had nothing to shoot.  I believe it's tricky to use this as a barometer unless it takes a look at branches vs branches and not only side vs side.

 

Just my .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hillstorm

What about two different classes of players (during a campaign): 1) Those who play only one side. They can log in to their side at any time, though SD still applies when overpop. 2) Those who wish to play different sides. They can only spawn in a side when it is underpop. 

In other words, if I start the camp as axis, I can remain axis and spawn in normally throughout the campaign. However, if I ever wish to switch to allied, I can ONLY do so when allied is underpop; and from there on out, can only log into the underpop side; whether allied or axis.

Wouldn't solve all our problems, and I'm sure there are some flaws to it (among them, people will just use their multiple accounts to get around it), but we need some sort of ideas here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pickering4
59 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

What about two different classes of players (during a campaign): 1) Those who play only one side. They can log in to their side at any time, though SD still applies when overpop. 2) Those who wish to play different sides. They can only spawn in a side when it is underpop. 

In other words, if I start the camp as axis, I can remain axis and spawn in normally throughout the campaign. However, if I ever wish to switch to allied, I can ONLY do so when allied is underpop; and from there on out, can only log into the underpop side; whether allied or axis.

Wouldn't solve all our problems, and I'm sure there are some flaws to it (among them, people will just use their multiple accounts to get around it), but we need some sort of ideas here.

 Define underpop though...

 

As I stated I fly 99.999% of the time... Often the "overpop" side tends to have less pilots.... When I flew axis we were regularly 5-6 guys flying together all chasing 1-2 allied planes . Same has happened since I switched allied to try out the rides on that side.

 

People pay to play not pay to play what you want them to.

 

Essentially from a business model point of view it would be suicide to lock people in. How do you justify limiting someone to play only a portion of the available equipment? I've been playing since I think the 23rd of March and we were in the final tier already, should I a new player be locked in and then lose interest and not resub?

There are too many variables to make this work on top of is it really a problem? Or is it one of perception? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hillstorm
9 minutes ago, pickering4 said:

People pay to play not pay to play what you want them to.

I have argued before that anything that takes choices away from players, especially paying customers, is a bad thing. I've had to reflect on that, though, because it simply isn't true in all cases. 

We limit supply of weapons. There are situations where I WANT to play with the new 44 smg, but I cannot. There are situations, for gameplay reasons, that playing any navy role is not available. These are just examples. In just about every other WW2 game (and every FPS I've played) there is some sort of side-balancing mechanic at work. Most are pretty simple: You simply CANNOT spawn in a side that is overpop (within a margin of players). Now, those games are different, we are talking maps that last an hour, at best .. in most cases. But the principal is there: for fairness and gameplay, attempts are made to balance the sides. 

Now, with that said ... I think parsing out the pop issue in terms of ground forces, air force, and navy might be difficult but perhaps should be part of the discussion. 

Share this post


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

name me ONE sport or game that allows over 2 to 1 odds.  Name me ONE that allows 3 to 2 odds.

Cycling.

4 guys attack the group and go up the road. Two of them teammates, the other 2 working for themselves. Everyone else so far back it's irrelevant. 
OR on a mountain finish... 15-20 guys are fighting for the win. One team has 3 guys around to help the leader (total of 4), each other team has only their leader left, or maybe an extra guy. @zippy knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stump
6 hours ago, blakeh said:

You pay your money, you play the side you want.  Maybe side lock for FTPs only.   

But I suspect any type of side lock will result in a loss of players.

 

Definitely, and that's the last thing we need

Share this post


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

(snip)

Out of 7 billion people and 100s of countries....... name me ONE sport or game that allows over 2 to 1 odds.  Name me ONE that allows 3 to 2 odds.

Quote

Cycling.

...and both sports have crashing in common too! ;-)

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aj1874

Maybe allow X amount of side switchers per campaign.

But seriously, if you side switch constantly........yeah you pay for the game, but it really is quite [censored] of you.  Get invested for a campaign, then next do what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout

im right there with ya on this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K

With free accounts it's not practical.  If someone wants to swap they'll just make a 2nd (many players already have). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bus0
On 7/12/2020 at 10:39 PM, kareca said:

only that...

S!

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite

If there were more stats on the Persona page, such as:

1. How many towns had been taken by each side in the last 24hrs

2. How much percentage of the last 24hrs each side had been under pop

3. The current numbers ratio

Would that make more people join the side that most needed them or would it have the opposite effect?

Me personally, I'd join the side that needed me most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dwalin

I don't remember who said it, but my favorite suggestion on this is that you get three choices at the beginning of the campaign:  Axis, Allied, or No Preference.  The first two are obvious, the third spawns you as whichever side is currently underpopulated at the time you log in.

That said, I don't see a campaign long side lock ever coming into effect in this game.  I would love, however, to see a 24 hour side lock come in.  How often do you see someone you just killed show up on your mission?  Too often for me.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't remember who said it, but my favorite suggestion on this is that you get three choices at the beginning of the campaign:  Axis, Allied, or No Preference.  The first two are obvious, the third spawns you as whichever side is currently underpopulated at the time you log in.

That said, I don't see a campaign long side lock ever coming into effect in this game.  I would love, however, to see a 24 hour side lock come in.  How often do you see someone you just killed show up on your mission?  Too often for me.  

That was me, and to be all honest makes the most sense.

You got all you need in a package. 

And let's be honest the die hards won't switch sides no matter how bad one side gets beat . They rather come into the forum and gloat .

The 3rd option the player gets put into underpop, with a chance to switch if other side does go underpop or he can stay , that way he won't end up on the stats page of the guys he just fought along side.

I like the idea of you pick option 3 you go underpop and stay locked to that side for a certain amount of hours no matter if that side does go OP in that time period. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

You aren't likely to affect, "fix" a perspective problem (aka side switching) with a technical response.

Having people "buy in", or "commit" to a side comes about by having a sense of community...sense of purpose with that community or ideal/value.

Perhaps a focus on that, which may involve some technical response...i.e. you stay with a side you get access to more goodies sooner....or join a squad of X size or regularly found on side Z, you get same goodies as top players in that squad....

When a person is paying (or perhaps "paying" through participating as FTP) invitation not limitation may have some affect with out losing player base.

Just some thoughts.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM

In my opinion the best solution (if any in this case) would be to side-lock Free Players only. As paying subscribers, I believe we should protect the autonomy of your decision making in that respect. But as it currently stands, we don't have anything like this in the pipeline or in the designing phase.

Side balance is something we are interested in of course as we've done a lot and already to help assist before going to the brute-force route, we've demonstrated several "incentive" based approaches, even pretty recently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
3 minutes ago, XOOM said:

In my opinion the best solution (if any in this case) would be to side-lock Free Players only. As paying subscribers, I believe we should protect the autonomy of your decision making in that respect. But as it currently stands, we don't have anything like this in the pipeline or in the designing phase.

Side balance is something we are interested in of course as we've done a lot and already to help assist before going to the brute-force route, we've demonstrated several "incentive" based approaches, even pretty recently. 

Xoom would it be possible to link a side lock to squads? You know that AEF, lancers, 4wing are allied.whips, 91st  etc are axis. If you are a member of a clearly  side specific sqaud you are locked to that's squad side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
3 minutes ago, foe2 said:

Xoom would it be possible to link a side lock to squads? You know that AEF, lancers, 4wing are allied.whips, 91st  etc are axis. If you are a member of a clearly  side specific sqaud you are locked to that's squad side.

At this time there is no way for us to lock any individual or entity. Not saying it's not something to consider, perhaps membership in Squads is locked to a side as the "Squad Leader" determines. This might have more merit because paying players will still have the opportunity to leave that Squad and then get freed up, should they choose. Meanwhile it gives the Squad confidence that in what ever side they are committed to, 100% of the members also are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...