Side-balancing idea/question

[oboe]

thundregg's recent farewell post sortof turned into a discussion about what people perceive as being wrong with the game, and I think more than once ganging/hording/rolling bases was referred to.   I also happened to see a AH Facebook post complaining about the same thing, with a screenshot of the map & numbers to illustrate.  HTC responded to that post basically saying they could address the imbalance by forcing people to the low-numbered side when they login, but players wouldn't like that, and the player could solve his own problem by switching sides.

I'm wondering if anyone has ever suggested using a small perk point offer when a player logs in as incentive to be switched automatically to the low-numbered country.  Something along the lines of:

"Rooks have the lowest population.  Switch to Rooks and receive xx perk points (Y/N)?"   If the player responds "Y" the game would switch them automatically to Rooks and the points are added to the player's perk balance.   The number of perks could be variable and correspond to the degree of population imbalance - the greater a country is out-numbered, the greater number of perk points would be offered.       

The ability to disable these offers could be in Preferences, so people who don't want to be bothered with it can opt out.

A change like this could also go hand-in-hand with a little restructuring to the perk system, i.e. an expansion of the number of lightly perked planes and vehicles, the ability to spend perk points to fly planes that are ENY restricted, etc.

Anyway, just a thought to try to use a carrot rather than a stick to encourage players to help solve the country imbalance problem.   

<S>

[haggerty]

One problem with the side balancing is that people play with squads, and switching sides will have you locked for what, 6 hours?  Sometimes I'll switch sides to try to get to know the other players or just for a change of pace, but I'm met with "Hey guys, dont say anything, a Knight is with us right now", or we failed to capture this base because Gloom is on our team right now, he must be a spy.  People don't believe that others have integrity to just play the game without giving up information, why switch teams if you are going to be met with distrust and left to die by people you normally shoot down. 
I'd be happy with a 2 hour cooldown on side switching.  I'm in Europe at the moment so often when I get on, none of my squad mates are on.  I could use that time to even the sides, then when my friends are online I can switch back.  But currently if I switch sides to help even the teams, I'm stuck on that side for the whole night.

[oboe]

One problem with the side balancing is that people play with squads, and switching sides will have you locked for what, 6 hours?  Sometimes I'll switch sides to try to get to know the other players or just for a change of pace, but I'm met with "Hey guys, dont say anything, a Knight is with us right now", or we failed to capture this base because Gloom is on our team right now, he must be a spy.  People don't believe that others have integrity to just play the game without giving up information, why switch teams if you are going to be met with distrust and left to die by people you normally shoot down. 
I'd be happy with a 2 hour cooldown on side switching.  I'm in Europe at the moment so often when I get on, none of my squad mates are on.  I could use that time to even the sides, then when my friends are online I can switch back.  But currently if I switch sides to help even the teams, I'm stuck on that side for the whole night.

I've noticed that too, Haggerty - I used to switch sides occasionally to find better fights or just to play alongside some different players for a change, and the last time I did that someone suggested I may be a spy.  <shrug>   Perhaps if more people switched sides more often it wouldn't be looked at with suspicion.

Maybe they could reduce the time limit for people who have switched sides and received the perk reward.   Or remove the time limit altogether, but tie the number of perk points to how long you spend on the low numbered side or how many sorties you've flown for that country, and award them as you log off or switch back to your original country.   Starting to sound like being a mercenary, doesn't it?

[Vraciu]

Many of us don't care about perks. 


You're missing the forest for the trees, folks.

[Wiley]

You already get more perks for everything you do when you're on the low numbered side.  Clearly it's not enough of a motivator to get people to switch countries.

Wiley.

[bustr]

What is the carrot that attracts people to hoard? Why do players given a two sided arena like the WW1 arena choose to hop onto the side with the most numbers and not move given the freedom to choose? Why don't groups(or\squads) of players choose to address side imbalances in one go in the MA every day given the side switch timer is now 6 hours?

The answers to these questions everyone knows and no one wants to admit to. While you are winning and kicking the other guy in the ribs, it feels too good to stop. Basic human nature.

One of the things three countries does is gives the hoarded country a way to avoid that hoard and do it to the other country until things calm down. And is why you see a country ignoring a front that has a hoard on it. Three sides is not perfect especially when two countries decide at the same time to run hoards at the third country. Not much different than a two country arena with 80% in one country hoarding and chasing out of the game for the night or forever, 20% in the other country. With three sides the chasing out is more likely a country jump than canceling a subscription.

Groups of friends(or\squads) tend to become territorial(tribal) and resist change(country jumping). If the side switch time was reduced to an equivalent of at will or several times a session, being on the winning side(hoard) will alleviate the factors that cause (tribalism) to resist change. That is the magic carrot.

Stop trying to appeal to peoples better lights and admit they play shootemup games for very base and selfish reasons. Then address those reasons, you will get better results.   

[Vraciu]

Player retention.  Player retention.  Player retention. 

Solve this and the rest solves itself. 

[Arlo]

Hordey! Good Lordy! PewPewPewPewPewPewPewPewPewPe wPewPewPewPewPewPewPewPewPewP ewPewPew.....

[popeye]

If the side switch time was reduced to an equivalent of at will or several times a session, being on the winning side(hoard) will alleviate the factors that cause (tribalism) to resist change. That is the magic carrot.

Not sure what you are suggesting -- everyone switch to join the horde so they can be on the winning side?  At least the early war planes would get some use.   

[Vinkman]

So many facts not in evidence here.

Is hording correlated with side imbalance?    ----->No
Is base rolling correlated with side imbalance ---->No

why do people equate them?

I've found that side imbalance has very little impact on game play. It matters "who" is playing [I.E. certain squads and groups of players like rolling bases.] When they are on they roll bases even if they have fewer people on their side. 

 

[bustr]

Popeye,

The only thing that over comes the bonds of tribalism in this game is winning. If side switching was the equivalent of at will in some variation, squads and groups would hop to the winning side to be able to stick it to the looser's and feel good. One of the fundamental problems with side balancing in two sided arenas like the AvA and WW1.

You want to balance sides, stop approaching the solutions by thinking everyone is a reasonable and good person like they are forced to be in the real world. They play this game to stick it to someone for what happens to them in the real world. Look at the root reasons they don't switch sides and why they hoard. Then pull a carrot out of that ground to entice them with because that is the real reward they feed themselves.

What are all the accusations thrown at the hoarders?

Cowards
Sissies
Face Shooters
Pickers
Gang and Pickers

All human nature and how most will operate in an open environment if they are not forced to act otherwise like FSO. It will be easier to come up with a solution if you admit this is how the game is played in an open environment with no structured rules of conduct to violate. Otherwise, this wish will end up as usual asking Hitech to force his customers to act like something they are not playing this game to be. Choir boys and saints.

[Arlo]

So many facts not in evidence here.

Is hording correlated with side imbalance?    ----->No
Is base rolling correlated with side imbalance ---->No

why do people equate them?

I've found that side imbalance has very little impact on game play. It matters "who" is playing [I.E. certain squads and groups of players like rolling bases.] When they are on they roll bases even if they have fewer people on their side. 

 

Base rolling and hording happen as a result of side imbalance, generally. It is, indeed, correlated. How can it not be?

Give instance of an outnumbered horde.

[Wiley]

Base rolling and hording happen as a result of side imbalance, generally. It is, indeed, correlated. How can it not be?

Give instance of an outnumbered horde.

He's not wrong.  Every once in a while you'll see one side with the higher total numbers and a horde, sometimes one from both of the opposing countries rolling that country that has the high numbers.

It doesn't take superior total country numbers to get a horde going, it takes critical mass of enough players that get headed in a single direction to make a horde.

Wiley.

[bustr]

Stop running away from the root of the problem or you will never reach any kind of a solution like you have all done with this question every time it has popped up for the last 15 years with out exception.

Why won't players in the AvA or WW1 arenas even the sides when one side with more numbers is stomping the other side unmercifully?

You want side balancing, either Hitech "forces" everyone against their will or, you work from this question to give them a carrot that is juicer than the one that has them kicking the other guys into the ground while enjoying their safe superior numbers.

[Arlo]

You want side balancing, either Hitech "forces" everyone against their will or, you work from this question to give them a carrot that is juicer than the one that has them kicking the other guys into the ground while enjoying their safe superior numbers.

^This.