Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
Little bit unfair to characterise CRS as 'picking and choosing'. The Antwerp issue can't be ignored but it's hardly the orchestrated puppet show you're suggesting it is
Isn't it? Every time theres a side continually losing suddenly there's an adjustment to supply or a new vehicle introduced or a ballistics audit or a server issue, etc. etc.. and suddenly the underdog is top dog. It is insulting to everone.
Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
Little bit unfair to characterise CRS as 'picking and choosing'. The Antwerp issue can't be ignored but it's hardly the orchestrated puppet show you're suggesting it is
Isn't it? Every time theres a side continually losing suddenly there's an adjustment to supply or a new vehicle introduced or a ballistics audit or a server issue, etc. etc.. and suddenly the underdog is top dog. It is insulting to everone.
Can you furnish those accusations with facts and evidence?
Anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass can see it. I don't have access to the forums right now so I can't find the post where DOC basically admitted they were changing the game to cater to Axis players because they had been losing so much (post TO&E). Balance is adding an AAA gun when the Allies didn't have one but the Axis did. Meddling is when you give the Allies twice the armor supply they should have until they've won several maps in a row, then finally reducing it. As an Allied player, I'm not blinded by side bias.
You know that I don't have access to their internal memos or their communications with the HC commanders so I can offer only anecdotal proof at best. I can just as easily ask you to prove your position, but you can't with any more hard evidence than I can. There's a reason there is no transparency.
Also, you know very well that any hard evidence that one might have cannot legally be shared. You wouldn't be trying to goad someone into a lawsuit would you?
Originally posted by Silky303 Arbitrary figures to define what is fun ftw!80 players? Meh, 126 or it's not worth me logging in tbh
Total numbers are relevant because there are plenty of non-subscription and even some free FPS games that have 64 player servers. If you find one that's modded or hacked in some cases they can go higher. I can go find some 100-200 size Mount & Blade servers, and in Planetside 2 when some guys are holed up in "the crown" and surrounded by everyone else there can be so many players that the virtual ground is shaking.
Fun is subjective, but I played the game for years and I know how active a 20 vs 20 AO is going to be, especially since they added the FRU timer and increased the capture timers. 40 vs 40 still isn't that exciting, depending on how organized it is and how many defenders are spawned in it can still be slow.
Since the company has done so much to prevent any sort of excitement or map movement at lower population levels, I won't bother unless there's a decent amount on the server.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way my thinking went once the squads broke up and the numbers dropped. Once you're down below a certain amount you lose what you were paying for. You're meant to be playing a MMO, but once you're below 64 you're into regular FPS size. So sure it can still be good, but why deal with the weaknesses of it when you can play something like Red Orchestra as the fact it as a lower population cap no longer applies.
I have the same complaint with MSPs. Those are much more like the spawn systems of the usual FPS games, and in ways even worse as they have no structure (360 degrees around a city, gaaaammey). I was paying for the 'big map'. Now made small by crushing it down to 300 yards around a city. Ditto for the 'sim' aspect when they do things like add a mini map + radar.
The more they made it similar to other shooters, the less reason there was to pay a monthly charge instead of a one time. The pop dropping also making that aspect the same making it even easier to move away.
Actually due to the animations, lag and cap system, inf was the first thing I moved away from in WWIIOL as that's where those weaknesses are most noticable. Wasn't so bad before combat was crushed down into a smaller area. If I wanted inf combat I'd play RO at the time. For tanks, ATGs, AAA I still played WWIIOL. Think that went on for about a year.
Originally posted by anfiach` Also, you know very well that any hard evidence that one might have cannot legally be shared. You wouldn't be trying to goad someone into a lawsuit would you?
Sorry but you've completely lost me there.
I wasn't meaning to be as abrasive as the post might read, I meant what narrative have you got to support your opinion? What was done pre-ToES, after ToES, the Axis run 50-60, the Allied run 60-70 etc
I just don't see - and haven't ever seen, in 6 years as AHC - the obvious meddling to impact campaign outcomes in the way you characterise it
Rdp wars-axis could not keep up the game changed so they could win again
Toe's-axis try to do a huge southern flanking manuever 2 maps in a row after toes introduced and lose those maps and 2 after since they couldnt grasp the concept-ahc map movers go axis to join okw and right the ship
Axis win 10 maps in a row-allies told they suck and fix it themselves
Originally posted by Jsilec Rdp wars-axis could not keep up the game changed so they could win again
Toe's-axis try to do a huge southern flanking manuever 2 maps in a row after toes introduced and lose those maps and 2 after since they couldnt grasp the concept-ahc map movers go axis to join okw and right the ship
Axis win 10 maps in a row-allies told they suck and fix it themselves
Originally posted by anfiach` Originally posted by Jsilec Rdp wars-axis could not keep up the game changed so they could win again Toe's-axis try to do a huge southern flanking manuever 2 maps in a row after toes introduced and lose those maps and 2 after since they couldnt grasp the concept-ahc map movers go axis to join okw and right the ship Axis win 10 maps in a row-allies told they suck and fix it themselves NERF BAT swings both ways so get over yourselves
Thanks for helping to prove my point.
Yeah the Antwerp thing just indicates that the company is taking a more direct involvement.
It's not some paranoid conspiracy. They have long talked about the problems with important captures+map movements during low population unbalancing the game and causing the more subscription-heavy time zones to leave. AOs, the FRU nerf, timers, supply, etc. weren't enough so they finally did something about it.
I'll point out that this is another failure of the HC system. A handful of good high command officers unsubscribing or switching sides can be catastrophic...I thought the point was to remove power from the unaccountable mega-squads and bring CRS more control of the game, give it more stability. Now it takes just a few players to upset the game rather than a mass movement.
Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
Little bit unfair to characterise CRS as 'picking and choosing'. The Antwerp issue can't be ignored but it's hardly the orchestrated puppet show you're suggesting it is
Isn't it? Every time theres a side continually losing suddenly there's an adjustment to supply or a new vehicle introduced or a ballistics audit or a server issue, etc. etc.. and suddenly the underdog is top dog. It is insulting to everone.
Can you furnish those accusations with facts and evidence?
Yes, look up the previous TO&Es from the past few years. I am not saying that I agree with Anfiach but he is mostly right.
CRS has adjusted the TO&E tables when one side loses a string of campaigns, it became a joke with in the Axis side and my squad 1st FJ. We used to say near the end of campaign, "Well next campaign we will have to do win again but with 1/4 less armor and air." It got so bad that when the Tier system was put in, it was so imballanced that I spearheaded a walk out by the Axis side.
CRS has to keep the game fun, so I agree they should mess with the TO&E tables if several campaigns in a row are lost by one side. But other than fixing glaring errors or bugs they havent really changed any weapon data or nerfed armor data just so one side can win. I may hate DOC, but I dont hate CRS or WWIIOL, and saying that CRS has been intentionally doing things so Allies can win or so Axis can win is just a load of crock.
If - big 'if,' I accept - you take Antwerp as a one off error or glitch or unfortunate turn of events, I think you'd be hard pressed to throw too much criticism at CRS for tweaks made in the name of balance.
One inherent positive of the game is that it's impossible to favour one side because the basic premise of the game - no hit points, no buffs, no level damage mitigation - never changes, it's still one bullet, one kill.
So unless the suggestion is they individual ballistic/joule or armour thickness data is being amended to bias, allegations of bias don't really stick IMO.
As for minor supply changes, whilst I can sympathise, I'm drawn back to the question - what would you do if you ran a game, and that game relies on players self-balancing numbers, but the players won'
t balance numbers as might be ideal? In the knowledge that the game experience for underpop side that is continually struggling or repeatedly losing is pretty poor?
I don't know what changes have been made to supply lists now or in past years, I've never been overly interested in going through the data. But I think I can say I'd completely understand minor tweaks being made if the game is beginning to feel like its listing too heavily to one side.
Yeah it would be ideal for the supply lists and movement timers to always be the same but it would be equally ideal for players to self-correct population imbalance and for squads to be aware enough of the wider need for an approximately equal win ratio.
We can't bemoan one whilst not doing anything about the other
You guys are entitled to your opinions, I simply contend that you are wrong. CRS monitors things too closely for me to believe that they accidentally make changes that completely flip things around. Consistently. It goes far beyond balance. The only way to get 50/50 in the W/L column is by manipulating the results.
If - big 'if,' I accept - you take Antwerp as a one off error or glitch or unfortunate turn of events, I think you'd be hard pressed to throw too much criticism at CRS for tweaks made in the name of balance.
One inherent positive of the game is that it's impossible to favour one side because the basic premise of the game - no hit points, no buffs, no level damage mitigation - never changes, it's still one bullet, one kill.
So unless the suggestion is they individual ballistic/joule or armour thickness data is being amended to bias, allegations of bias don't really stick IMO.
As for minor supply changes, whilst I can sympathise, I'm drawn back to the question - what would you do if you ran a game, and that game relies on players self-balancing numbers, but the players won'
t balance numbers as might be ideal? In the knowledge that the game experience for underpop side that is continually struggling or repeatedly losing is pretty poor?
I don't know what changes have been made to supply lists now or in past years, I've never been overly interested in going through the data. But I think I can say I'd completely understand minor tweaks being made if the game is beginning to feel like its listing too heavily to one side.
Yeah it would be ideal for the supply lists and movement timers to always be the same but it would be equally ideal for players to self-correct population imbalance and for squads to be aware enough of the wider need for an approximately equal win ratio.
We can't bemoan one whilst not doing anything about the other
The issue though is that it was so (or appears to be - 'if') blatant. I would say it is one thing giving a side 2 more tanks in an armoured brigade or a few more top fighters in a tier but it is another thing to directly intervene in a battle. Even if you intervene in the game in a pro-interventionist manner you still have to sit back and let the players be the ones to determine what happens. After all the frontlines should be determined by the result of battles and players actions not what the developers see as best. When they do that they lose one of the biggest aspect of the game that is the actions of players affect the game for days and weeks.
If we look into the issue of 'what would we do' in the same situations then it is an interesting policy to explore, after all if one side consistenly wins, e.g. 80% of the time then that does harm the game. Concerning the self balancing squads have been dynamic in the past in switching to the losing side. However you do get non squad affiliated players joining the winning side, something of which I believe can be reduced with a 'carrot and stick' approach (which I look to propose soon). Though these are often not the best players, more casual ones. Also, victory after victory does not always mean that a side plays better and better. After a string of victories players get complacent. They stop guarding FB's, defending that spawnable depot, running that fru etc and some might get bored of 'easier' victories that give them less reward. Thus I believe the game is quite self balancing and can become more so if they were to add some new game mechanics (for lack of a better word).
I can only speak for myself on supply changes thus I would say minor tweaks should be undertaken only when a number of conditions have been met:
a) One side has repeately lost multiple campaigns (e.g. 4) within a period of time
b) 'Softer' options of side rebalances e.g. changing capture timers, FRU timers, the proportion of allied/axis FB's on server resets etc have been fully exhausted (to a respectable degree, maximun of say 45 seconds decrease on cp's and fru's)
c) Any changes in supply (or game mechanics e.g. RDP) are publically announced and not covertly done behind the scenes (with anyone who points them out is not accused of being a liar even when the facts are clear for everyone to see).
Supply changes IMO should be the last thing undertaken and when they are undertaken they should be told to everyone
* To clarify used your post to expand the discussion and was not attacking (nor accusing you of doing so)
The issue though is that it was so (or appears to be - 'if') blatant. I would say it is one thing giving a side 2 more tanks in an armoured brigade or a few more top fighters in a tier but it is another thing to directly intervene in a battle. Even if you intervene in the game in a pro-interventionist manner you still have to sit back and let the players be the ones to determine what happens. After all the frontlines should be determined by the result of battles and players actions not what the developers see as best. When they do that they lose one of the biggest aspect of the game that is the actions of players affect the game for days and weeks.
If we look into the issue of 'what would we do' in the same situations then it is an interesting policy to explore, after all if one side consistenly wins, e.g. 80% of the time then that does harm the game. Concerning the self balancing squads have been dynamic in the past in switching to the losing side. However you do get non squad affiliated players joining the winning side, something of which I believe can be reduced with a 'carrot and stick' approach (which I look to propose soon). Though these are often not the best players, more casual ones. Also, victory after victory does not always mean that a side plays better and better. After a string of victories players get complacent. They stop guarding FB's, defending that spawnable depot, running that fru etc and some might get bored of 'easier' victories that give them less reward. Thus I believe the game is quite self balancing and can become more so if they were to add some new game mechanics (for lack of a better word).
I can only speak for myself on supply changes thus I would say minor tweaks should be undertaken only when a number of conditions have been met:
a) One side has repeately lost multiple campaigns (e.g. 4) within a period of time
b) 'Softer' options of side rebalances e.g. changing capture timers, FRU timers, the proportion of allied/axis FB's on server resets etc have been fully exhausted (to a respectable degree, maximun of say 45 seconds decrease on cp's and fru's)
c) Any changes in supply (or game mechanics e.g. RDP) are publically announced and not covertly done behind the scenes (with anyone who points them out is not accused of being a liar even when the facts are clear for everyone to see).
Supply changes IMO should be the last thing undertaken and when they are undertaken they should be told to everyone
I completely agree about direct intervention, which is why I prefaced my statement with the Antwerp 'if'
I'd also completely agree with the desire for public, open game rule, mechanic and supply information. There have been calls for an open rule book for years, and it's unfortunate that game elements like Fallback rules, resupply timers, FRU mechanics etc sort of lurk under the bonnet
What I'd suggest you overlook though is the damaging effect of continued - and expected - loss. This game is all about momentum, and starting a campaign expecting to lose is a real challenge. Once you start to bleed players, to the other side and to other games, you really are on a hiding to nothing
Yeah it would be ideal for the supply lists and movement timers to always be the same but it would be equally ideal for players to self-correct population imbalance and for squads to be aware enough of the wider need for an approximately equal win ratio.
Supply has never been tweaked to account for population imbalances, it has only been discussed as a possibility. Balance is allowing both sides equal ability given equal numbers. Tweaking the numbers beyond that point of balance to affect outcomes is meddling.
Squads need to be aware? What would you have them do, throw the map? So now we are to the point of patronizing the underdogs to make them feel good? Fixed outcomes leaves players with no reason to invest effort in the game on either side.
You are advocating for interference. Even admitting that it happens. You're simply trying to qualify it as balancing. Balancing ensures equal opportunity, meddling ensures equal outcomes.
Originally posted by Silky303 If I ran a game and a side won 10 in a row and I was seeing the other side spiral into a player exodus vicious circle, I'd probably consider tweaks
In the same if I'm having a soccer kick about with matesand we're 10 - 0 up, I'd think about adjusting the sides to even it out
The subject of bias on CRS's part comes up when "the shoe is on the other foot".
For the first few years of TO&E and the Tier system CRS constantly adjusted the AXIS and ALLIED tables so they could balance out the sides. It got so bad at one point to where the AXIS didnt have the 109 until Tier 1, and Tier 0 lasted close to three weeks before the RDP would kick to Tier 1. Which often meant there was NO Axis airforce/Luftwaffa until 3 to 4 weeks after the campaign started. If the campaign made it that far the Axis would usually be backed into the handful of towns on the eastern edge of the map. CRS for a good while, almost a full year refused to put the 109 back into tier 0, but kept the Spitfire and the P36 Hawk in tier 0. So the Axis side was forced to dogfight, with Bf-110Cs, which anyone who flew in the game knew, was a HORRIBLE fighter, and no match for the Spitfire, Hurricane, and P36. Then there was the historical precedent of it, Tier 0 is supposedly the May 1940 tables, which meant the Bf-109E1 and E4 were in service and in use. At the time we only had the E4 modeled, and even DOC himself that there was in sevice at that point, and I could comfirm this along with several other players. But after about 3 map wins in a row they removed the 109 and left the Spitfire MkI, and the Hurricane MkI, and the P36 Hawk. Not to meantion the DB-7, which was faster than a Bf-110C.
I remember saying in the Playskool forums before it was locked and deleted, "The DB-7 was in VERY limited numbers in France, less than the 109E4. There were only 64 used, and none of them actually seen action, they were evacuated to North Africa. And the British didnt get them until 1941, almost a full year after the Battle Of France..."
Originally posted by Silky303 If I ran a game and a side won 10 in a row and I was seeing the other side spiral into a player exodus vicious circle, I'd probably consider tweaks
In the same if I'm having a soccer kick about with matesand we're 10 - 0 up, I'd think about adjusting the sides to even it out
The subject of bias on CRS's part comes up when "the shoe is on the other foot".
For the first few years of TO&E and the Tier system CRS constantly adjusted the AXIS and ALLIED tables so they could balance out the sides. It got so bad at one point to where the AXIS didnt have the 109 until Tier 1, and Tier 0 lasted close to three weeks before the RDP would kick to Tier 1. Which often meant there was NO Axis airforce/Luftwaffa until 3 to 4 weeks after the campaign started. If the campaign made it that far the Axis would usually be backed into the handful of towns on the eastern edge of the map. CRS for a good while, almost a full year refused to put the 109 back into tier 0, but kept the Spitfire and the P36 Hawk in tier 0. So the Axis side was forced to dogfight, with Bf-110Cs, which anyone who flew in the game knew, was a HORRIBLE fighter, and no match for the Spitfire, Hurricane, and P36. Then there was the historical precedent of it, Tier 0 is supposedly the May 1940 tables, which meant the Bf-109E1 and E4 were in service and in use. At the time we only had the E4 modeled, and even DOC himself that there was in sevice at that point, and I could comfirm this along with several other players. But after about 3 map wins in a row they removed the 109 and left the Spitfire MkI, and the Hurricane MkI, and the P36 Hawk. Not to meantion the DB-7, which was faster than a Bf-110C.
I remember saying in the Playskool forums before it was locked and deleted, "The DB-7 was in VERY limited numbers in France, less than the 109E4. There were only 64 used, and none of them actually seen action, they were evacuated to North Africa. And the British didnt get them until 1941, almost a full year after the Battle Of France..."
My post wasn't side specific. I trust the Rats don't care which side's in the ascendency as long as one side doesn't dominate that position, simply because one side dominating impacts player retention for the other side
Originally posted by Silky303 If I ran a game and a side won 10 in a row and I was seeing the other side spiral into a player exodus vicious circle, I'd probably consider tweaks
In the same if I'm having a soccer kick about with matesand we're 10 - 0 up, I'd think about adjusting the sides to even it out
Silk, nothing wrong with tweaks
I think when it comes down to it the playerbase would understand and accept it as long as it was announced publicly.
Adding a few tanks here, a few planes there is nothing.
Interfering with town captures leaves a lot of explaining to do and is damaging to the game.
Comments
Isn't it? Every time theres a side continually losing suddenly there's an adjustment to supply or a new vehicle introduced or a ballistics audit or a server issue, etc. etc.. and suddenly the underdog is top dog. It is insulting to everone.
Can you furnish those accusations with facts and evidence?
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
Anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass can see it. I don't have access to the forums right now so I can't find the post where DOC basically admitted they were changing the game to cater to Axis players because they had been losing so much (post TO&E). Balance is adding an AAA gun when the Allies didn't have one but the Axis did. Meddling is when you give the Allies twice the armor supply they should have until they've won several maps in a row, then finally reducing it. As an Allied player, I'm not blinded by side bias.
You know that I don't have access to their internal memos or their communications with the HC commanders so I can offer only anecdotal proof at best. I can just as easily ask you to prove your position, but you can't with any more hard evidence than I can. There's a reason there is no transparency.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way my thinking went once the squads broke up and the numbers dropped. Once you're down below a certain amount you lose what you were paying for. You're meant to be playing a MMO, but once you're below 64 you're into regular FPS size. So sure it can still be good, but why deal with the weaknesses of it when you can play something like Red Orchestra as the fact it as a lower population cap no longer applies.
I have the same complaint with MSPs. Those are much more like the spawn systems of the usual FPS games, and in ways even worse as they have no structure (360 degrees around a city, gaaaammey). I was paying for the 'big map'. Now made small by crushing it down to 300 yards around a city. Ditto for the 'sim' aspect when they do things like add a mini map + radar.
The more they made it similar to other shooters, the less reason there was to pay a monthly charge instead of a one time. The pop dropping also making that aspect the same making it even easier to move away.
Actually due to the animations, lag and cap system, inf was the first thing I moved away from in WWIIOL as that's where those weaknesses are most noticable. Wasn't so bad before combat was crushed down into a smaller area. If I wanted inf combat I'd play RO at the time. For tanks, ATGs, AAA I still played WWIIOL. Think that went on for about a year.
Sorry but you've completely lost me there.
I wasn't meaning to be as abrasive as the post might read, I meant what narrative have you got to support your opinion? What was done pre-ToES, after ToES, the Axis run 50-60, the Allied run 60-70 etc
I just don't see - and haven't ever seen, in 6 years as AHC - the obvious meddling to impact campaign outcomes in the way you characterise it
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
Toe's-axis try to do a huge southern flanking manuever 2 maps in a row after toes introduced and lose those maps and 2 after since they couldnt grasp the concept-ahc map movers go axis to join okw and right the ship
Axis win 10 maps in a row-allies told they suck and fix it themselves
NERF BAT swings both ways so get over yourselves
Thanks for helping to prove my point.
Yeah the Antwerp thing just indicates that the company is taking a more direct involvement.
It's not some paranoid conspiracy. They have long talked about the problems with important captures+map movements during low population unbalancing the game and causing the more subscription-heavy time zones to leave. AOs, the FRU nerf, timers, supply, etc. weren't enough so they finally did something about it.
I'll point out that this is another failure of the HC system. A handful of good high command officers unsubscribing or switching sides can be catastrophic...I thought the point was to remove power from the unaccountable mega-squads and bring CRS more control of the game, give it more stability. Now it takes just a few players to upset the game rather than a mass movement.
Yes, look up the previous TO&Es from the past few years. I am not saying that I agree with Anfiach but he is mostly right.
CRS has adjusted the TO&E tables when one side loses a string of campaigns, it became a joke with in the Axis side and my squad 1st FJ. We used to say near the end of campaign, "Well next campaign we will have to do win again but with 1/4 less armor and air." It got so bad that when the Tier system was put in, it was so imballanced that I spearheaded a walk out by the Axis side.
CRS has to keep the game fun, so I agree they should mess with the TO&E tables if several campaigns in a row are lost by one side. But other than fixing glaring errors or bugs they havent really changed any weapon data or nerfed armor data just so one side can win. I may hate DOC, but I dont hate CRS or WWIIOL, and saying that CRS has been intentionally doing things so Allies can win or so Axis can win is just a load of crock.
So much crap, so little quality.
If - big 'if,' I accept - you take Antwerp as a one off error or glitch or unfortunate turn of events, I think you'd be hard pressed to throw too much criticism at CRS for tweaks made in the name of balance.
One inherent positive of the game is that it's impossible to favour one side because the basic premise of the game - no hit points, no buffs, no level damage mitigation - never changes, it's still one bullet, one kill.
So unless the suggestion is they individual ballistic/joule or armour thickness data is being amended to bias, allegations of bias don't really stick IMO.
As for minor supply changes, whilst I can sympathise, I'm drawn back to the question - what would you do if you ran a game, and that game relies on players self-balancing numbers, but the players won'
t balance numbers as might be ideal? In the knowledge that the game experience for underpop side that is continually struggling or repeatedly losing is pretty poor?
I don't know what changes have been made to supply lists now or in past years, I've never been overly interested in going through the data. But I think I can say I'd completely understand minor tweaks being made if the game is beginning to feel like its listing too heavily to one side.
Yeah it would be ideal for the supply lists and movement timers to always be the same but it would be equally ideal for players to self-correct population imbalance and for squads to be aware enough of the wider need for an approximately equal win ratio.
We can't bemoan one whilst not doing anything about the other
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
The issue though is that it was so (or appears to be - 'if') blatant. I would say it is one thing giving a side 2 more tanks in an armoured brigade or a few more top fighters in a tier but it is another thing to directly intervene in a battle. Even if you intervene in the game in a pro-interventionist manner you still have to sit back and let the players be the ones to determine what happens. After all the frontlines should be determined by the result of battles and players actions not what the developers see as best. When they do that they lose one of the biggest aspect of the game that is the actions of players affect the game for days and weeks.
If we look into the issue of 'what would we do' in the same situations then it is an interesting policy to explore, after all if one side consistenly wins, e.g. 80% of the time then that does harm the game. Concerning the self balancing squads have been dynamic in the past in switching to the losing side. However you do get non squad affiliated players joining the winning side, something of which I believe can be reduced with a 'carrot and stick' approach (which I look to propose soon). Though these are often not the best players, more casual ones. Also, victory after victory does not always mean that a side plays better and better. After a string of victories players get complacent. They stop guarding FB's, defending that spawnable depot, running that fru etc and some might get bored of 'easier' victories that give them less reward. Thus I believe the game is quite self balancing and can become more so if they were to add some new game mechanics (for lack of a better word).
I can only speak for myself on supply changes thus I would say minor tweaks should be undertaken only when a number of conditions have been met:
a) One side has repeately lost multiple campaigns (e.g. 4) within a period of time
b) 'Softer' options of side rebalances e.g. changing capture timers, FRU timers, the proportion of allied/axis FB's on server resets etc have been fully exhausted (to a respectable degree, maximun of say 45 seconds decrease on cp's and fru's)
c) Any changes in supply (or game mechanics e.g. RDP) are publically announced and not covertly done behind the scenes (with anyone who points them out is not accused of being a liar even when the facts are clear for everyone to see).
Supply changes IMO should be the last thing undertaken and when they are undertaken they should be told to everyone
* To clarify used your post to expand the discussion and was not attacking (nor accusing you of doing so)
I completely agree about direct intervention, which is why I prefaced my statement with the Antwerp 'if'
I'd also completely agree with the desire for public, open game rule, mechanic and supply information. There have been calls for an open rule book for years, and it's unfortunate that game elements like Fallback rules, resupply timers, FRU mechanics etc sort of lurk under the bonnet
What I'd suggest you overlook though is the damaging effect of continued - and expected - loss. This game is all about momentum, and starting a campaign expecting to lose is a real challenge. Once you start to bleed players, to the other side and to other games, you really are on a hiding to nothing
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
Bodkin, your post is 100% spot on.
Couldn't have wrote it better myself.
Supply has never been tweaked to account for population imbalances, it has only been discussed as a possibility. Balance is allowing both sides equal ability given equal numbers. Tweaking the numbers beyond that point of balance to affect outcomes is meddling.
Squads need to be aware? What would you have them do, throw the map? So now we are to the point of patronizing the underdogs to make them feel good? Fixed outcomes leaves players with no reason to invest effort in the game on either side.
You are advocating for interference. Even admitting that it happens. You're simply trying to qualify it as balancing. Balancing ensures equal opportunity, meddling ensures equal outcomes.
In the same if I'm having a soccer kick about with matesand we're 10 - 0 up, I'd think about adjusting the sides to even it out
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
The subject of bias on CRS's part comes up when "the shoe is on the other foot".
For the first few years of TO&E and the Tier system CRS constantly adjusted the AXIS and ALLIED tables so they could balance out the sides. It got so bad at one point to where the AXIS didnt have the 109 until Tier 1, and Tier 0 lasted close to three weeks before the RDP would kick to Tier 1. Which often meant there was NO Axis airforce/Luftwaffa until 3 to 4 weeks after the campaign started. If the campaign made it that far the Axis would usually be backed into the handful of towns on the eastern edge of the map. CRS for a good while, almost a full year refused to put the 109 back into tier 0, but kept the Spitfire and the P36 Hawk in tier 0. So the Axis side was forced to dogfight, with Bf-110Cs, which anyone who flew in the game knew, was a HORRIBLE fighter, and no match for the Spitfire, Hurricane, and P36. Then there was the historical precedent of it, Tier 0 is supposedly the May 1940 tables, which meant the Bf-109E1 and E4 were in service and in use. At the time we only had the E4 modeled, and even DOC himself that there was in sevice at that point, and I could comfirm this along with several other players. But after about 3 map wins in a row they removed the 109 and left the Spitfire MkI, and the Hurricane MkI, and the P36 Hawk. Not to meantion the DB-7, which was faster than a Bf-110C.
I remember saying in the Playskool forums before it was locked and deleted, "The DB-7 was in VERY limited numbers in France, less than the 109E4. There were only 64 used, and none of them actually seen action, they were evacuated to North Africa. And the British didnt get them until 1941, almost a full year after the Battle Of France..."
So much crap, so little quality.
My post wasn't side specific. I trust the Rats don't care which side's in the ascendency as long as one side doesn't dominate that position, simply because one side dominating impacts player retention for the other side
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
Silk, nothing wrong with tweaks
I think when it comes down to it the playerbase would understand and accept it as long as it was announced publicly.
Adding a few tanks here, a few planes there is nothing.
Interfering with town captures leaves a lot of explaining to do and is damaging to the game.
Case in point
And I bet if we were able to go back in time things would be done differently
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL