Team Balancing Discussion

[ATAG_Dutch]

I know.

They only ever get shot down by the IIa those blue guys.

I never even bother trying to get a IIa anymore. Leave them for the good guys like Sniper.

[csThor]

Seriously, Krupi ... If you want fairness and equality go play a sports game. I totally agree with Feathered_IV - adpot any kind of "equality rules" or any other gamey crutch to create a perceived equality you take away what interests me in historical flightsims in the first place - the historical setting. Actually that one is among the top 5 reasons why I greatly prefer offline.

Why don't the airfields have enough AAA to crush single vulchers?

[SEE]

I usually only Fly Red but, as Bliss and others pointed out, you miss half of the game potential.

So, I have been cutting my teeth in the E3B and now moved on to the E4B with Auto PP - it's great fun (though I have yet to fly it to its full potential). If the teams are unbalanced I can now switch which I couldn't do before. The big + is that I can select a great fighter with bombing capability to widen my enjoyment.

As for the low level ground attacks (Vulching) problem - I see that both Blue and Reds have bases that are too far for many opposing players to bother with. - Low level attacks are within the server rules so I use these unless told otherwise on TS.

MP is too fluid to have anything other than what we already have - the team balance is changing all the time as players log in and out.

[JG52Krupi]

I agree SEE none of the conventional methods would work in cod but whose to say we can't come up with a new system that would work.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think the only thing that can be done is waiting. For what you'll say. Well, for scripting and mission design to move forward.

I too prefer incentives to smoothly convince players into a certain style, rather than hard and fast rules. Of course, the players should also have a sense of sportsmanship.

I mean, it's not necessary to have completely equal teams and in the case of BoB a blue numerical advantage is also historically accurate to an extent. That means if i want to fly blue and the numbers are 30:20 in my favor i'll probably do it, but if they are 30:10 or 20:10 in my favor i'll probably switch to red, since numerical imbalance is more pronounced at smaller server populations. It's easier to get 5 people going in a group and survive if you have 20 on your team, than if you have just 10 (especially with the size of the map), so a 20:10 is more lopsided than a 30:20 even if the numerical gap is the same.

A supply system as already mentioned would be good, but that's part of extensive scripting. Maybe we could strip it down to bare essentials and have a planes/pilots counter like we had in IL2 servers, along with a simplified fuel supply model on a per-airfield basis. Eg, if target X gets destroyed (a fuel dump on the field or a nearby storage tank) then airfield Y doesn't have high quality fuel and people spawning there will get the 87 octane version to fly (or equivalent for blue team).

But that means we'll first have to get the appropriate FMs too, either as part of a loadout fuel type selection, or as copies of existing 3d models with two different FMs (low and high octane versions).

Overall, the solution is not too complicated, it will just take some time. In the meantime, upping the flak coverage around airfields (low level flak mainly, like 20mm, Bofors, etc, the short range but quick firing stuff) and instituting a planes/pilots counter for each team will help dissuade lone wolf strafing tactics while also making it historically dangerous to strafe a field.

Then as scripting and mission design progress, further incentives will be available, like affecting the enemy's quality of available hardware through planned operations. "Hey, let's hit their convoys,fuel dumps and Spitfire factories, so they only have 87 octane Hurricanes to fly and we can then win the map"...suddenly you'll have quite a few people flying blue bombers

For the time being, setting a planes and pilots limit per side and upping the flak around airfields will probably do. I mean, if you lose too many aircraft/pilots, your team will lose the map, so it's enough of an incentive to either fly clever or team up and do a realistic attack (one fast low level pass in a group and then out).


EDIT:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

P.S. Everyone please wait for Blackdogs wall of text which should be arriving shortly

Hahaha, forum telepathy

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think the only thing that can be done is waiting. For what you'll say. Well, for scripting and mission design to move forward.

I too prefer incentives to smoothly convince players into a certain style, rather than hard and fast rules. Of course, the players should also have a sense of sportsmanship.

I mean, it's not necessary to have completely equal teams and in the case of BoB a blue numerical advantage is also historically accurate to an extent. That means if i want to fly blue and the numbers are 30:20 in my favor i'll probably do it, but if they are 30:10 or 20:10 in my favor i'll probably switch to red, since numerical imbalance is more pronounced at smaller server populations. It's easier to get 5 people going in a group and survive if you have 20 on your team, than if you have just 10 (especially with the size of the map), so a 20:10 is more lopsided than a 30:20 even if the numerical gap is the same.

A supply system as already mentioned would be good, but that's part of extensive scripting. Maybe we could strip it down to bare essentials and have a planes/pilots counter like we had in IL2 servers, along with a simplified fuel supply model on a per-airfield basis. Eg, if target X gets destroyed (a fuel dump on the field or a nearby storage tank) then airfield Y doesn't have high quality fuel and people spawning there will get the 87 octane version to fly (or equivalent for blue team).

But that means we'll first have to get the appropriate FMs too, either as part of a loadout fuel type selection, or as copies of existing 3d models with two different FMs (low and high octane versions).

Overall, the solution is not too complicated, it will just take some time. In the meantime, upping the flak coverage around airfields (low level flak mainly, like 20mm, Bofors, etc, the short range but quick firing stuff) and instituting a planes/pilots counter for each team will help dissuade lone wolf strafing tactics while also making it historically dangerous to strafe a field.

Then as scripting and mission design progress, further incentives will be available, like affecting the enemy's quality of available hardware through planned operations. "Hey, let's hit their convoys,fuel dumps and Spitfire factories, so they only have 87 octane Hurricanes to fly and we can then win the map"...suddenly you'll have quite a few people flying blue bombers

For the time being, setting a planes and pilots limit per side and upping the flak around airfields will probably do. I mean, if you lose too many aircraft/pilots, your team will lose the map, so it's enough of an incentive to either fly clever or team up and do a realistic attack (one fast low level pass in a group and then out).


EDIT:



Hahaha, forum telepathy

Fantastic stuff, can always count on you to bring something to the table, it really is good to have you back.

I was thinking along the lines of a script that would stop the sides from going over a 1.5:1 ratio?

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by csThor

Seriously, Krupi ... If you want fairness and equality go play a sports game. I totally agree with Feathered_IV - adpot any kind of "equality rules" or any other gamey crutch to create a perceived equality you take away what interests me in historical flightsims in the first place - the historical setting. Actually that one is among the top 5 reasons why I greatly prefer offline.

I think you have completely missed my point mate, I am all for historical accuracy but I can't abide people that will always join the side they want regardless of how many ppl are on it, you have to admit 24 v 10 is not great but I still flew anyway.

It's nothing to do with historical accuracy.

[klem]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I think you have completely missed my point mate, I am all for historical accuracy but I can't abide people that will always join the side they want regardless of how many ppl are on it, you have to admit 24 v 10 is not great but I still flew anyway.

It's nothing to do with historical accuracy.

At the risk of repeating myself, some adjustment of the map (aircraft positioning) and a change of tactics by the players (its in our hands) will nullify most of the worries.

Think about this. You (or I), flying red, look at the numbers and realise it is 25 blues to 15 reds. How many blues do I actually come across? Maybe 3, 4.... 5? Never 8 or 10. Do I care? I am flying with my buddies. 4 of us, perhaps 6 or 7. The server numbers don't mean a great deal if the enemy aren't working together and we are. Even if they do its unlikely to get too heavy handed against us.

Of course if the blues and reds really got their "stuff" into one sock the numbers would matter. But as they would then be historical we would be exactly where we want to be.

But move the SpitIIa's to a rear field.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yes Klem, for thos of us who usually fly with our squad mates 2-6 at a time its not a problem but what about the little guys?