The UN killable FRU

[branko]

Given the games history there is always likely to be an issue with any system thats make you have to choose a side to play dependant on the current ingame player balance.

For RA, this isn't a issue as plenty of other games use a system where you can only join the under-pop side to balance the numbers, and as it would be in there from the start I doubt you'd have any complaints.

The problem with the campaign game is actually player affiliation, be that to country, squad or friends. What you're requiring is someone to see their side is over populated & has a spawn delay, and get them to go join the other side. This is a MAJOR issue for several reasons.

1. Players that only ever play one side will never switch, and thus have to either put up with spawn delay or log off. Be default all HC members fall into this group.

2. Player who squad only plays one side per map. NO player is going to leave their friends and go play the other side. Heck, in a lot of squads you'd get kicked out if you did!

3. Those who fight with their friends. They want to play on the same side as their friends and are not going to switch sides just avoid spawn delay.

What this means is the only group that may actually switch sides to avoid spawn delays are the lone-wolfs who don't care what side they play, and unfortunately I don't think we have enough of those to make the current system work!

Heck, I've even known of a couple of squads who's whole idea was to fight on which ever side was short on numbers that night. Of course a few spawn in on the low pop side, 30mins later when more come on, the other side is now low pop so you ended up with some on one side & some on the other! Oddly these sqauds didn't last.

So given the games long history & the way the player base tend to choose to play, no system that wants you to switch side can possibly work. The solution then has to be artificial balances, be they differing timers, or level of available equipment.

As others have pointed out, the side balance actualy isn't too much of an issue if you have large numbers of players on line. It's when you get down to the really low population times that is really screws things up.

The solution, well, appart from getting a lot more players into the game in all time zones, not really sure, but odds are it will have to be timers or equipment levels.

I wish the Rats all the best with coming up with a solution that pleases most people, because I;m not convinced their is one.

Great post and - as far as I can see - spot on.

There are few other purely PvP MMOs ... The others have PvE so that people can character-build without getting shot by another player every ten minutes. You don't lose in WoW.

Those other games have Co-Op and some limited PvP. But that is only part of how to win (and not a part most of them push).

It's what makes this game different (well, the big thing, I think).

Squad Loyalty - Side Loyalty - Character Loyalty

And that's without talking about stats ... which, here, get you little other than limited website-fame and so matter less here than in other MMOs ... other MMOs have pink hawt-pants to display how uber your character is.

All games have a point, a way of winning; winning is what brings the satisfaction from the fun you had doing the work in order to win.

Winning in this game is one of two things:

• Stats - Where an individual wins

• Depot/Town/Campaign - Where a side wins

Other than the "my favourite piece of equipment is not powerful enough" whining, few people complain about the individual winning (stats), though most would like more visibility of their uberness, in-game.

Team-Winning - Everyone moans about it, because it is subject to hundreds of variables, most out of player control that affect an individual's chance of being on the winning team

Is the latter solveable? I agree rwk, not by asking people to switch ... that's not winning, that's losing/giving-up/"cheating".

Is it solveable by lots of fantasy-pixie-dust? Probably, but I don't want to be a wizard and anyone who does probably wouldn't be here anyway.

Is it solveable by making the losing side (underpop) more attractive? ... From all I read, the solutions talked about are to do with Individual-Winning ... and that isn't a problem ... The (majority) of people concerned with team winning want to win for their team, not for themselves ...

... And making the underpop side the winners means - just like GOPHER says - that side will no longer be the underpop side ... Which, by extention, means the other side now will be!

Solveable ... no. Not with only one way to win.

(and see the whining that occurs when the campaign goes into stalemate ... when no side wins)

This is a two-sided game ... one side wins, one side loses ... for whatever reason, with however many players, with whatever crutches ... One side loses. And that side will always moan, because people don't like losing.

[alspecto]

Nevermind.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ALSPECTO

[matamor]

Besides more players what would help you most make it a fair fight?

Add dynamism. More contested towns on map at once & on a highest ratio that it is right now. That would also give less spawn armors camping on spawnable depot & raise the fun for infantry, greentags included.

Given the above' date=' what would make it so that you would win even as under pop [/quote']

Revamp TOEs or remove 2 divisions by side. Too much engines supplies. Underpop couldn't just manage to take towns when their spawn is camped to death by every windows angles with 8 minutes capping.

We've seen more heavy towns falling prior to TOEs stacking flags cause defenders who had overpop couldn't spawn 15 armors due to town based-supplies to reduce an underpop attack to silence in less than 5 minutes. Given a reduced cap timer would help and priviliege small arms fight for towns.

Edited August 26, 2011 by matamor

[slidew]

How about allowing FRU's in the houses in town. Wouldn't that enhance city fighting?

[narg]

One day, I looked at this game and thought "What we need to attract more players is more spawncamping."

[fxmmauser]

How about allowing FRU's in the houses in town. Wouldn't that enhance city fighting?

That would be awesome I thought of that weeks ago when I saw a kinda of small apartment with floors halls, stairs and I thought wow if there was a fru here inside it would be so handsome to assault or hold ground inside it.

About daisy chains frus the backup frus would have to be invisible and could not be kill unless the primary is destroyed, because this could increase fru camping, I can't imagine how a major objective with lot of missions the number of possible efrus there would be like 30 maybe spread all over the map.

Why not make something simple, one backup fru at least 100m away from the primary fru, when the player makes a new fru closer to the objective the last backup fru is destroyed and the last main fru is now the backup.

Has mention before the problem with daisy chain fru is when there is low population sometimes those fru hunters are literary what holds a town and help even a fight that otherwise would had been lost fairly quickly.

Besides if real MLs knew how to use frus they wouldn't need a daisy chain or any improvements.

It's all about hiding and keep replacing them often on different directions at low distances from the target also a ML should never enter a city, he must remain on the outskirts scouting for better positions while keeping an eye if any EI is hunting his fru.