Side balance ideas

[Tank-Ace]

I've thought that it would be helpful to keeping the numbers even if the losing two countries were compensated with perks as well. Say give the winning side 20 perks, and each loosing side 10 perks in each category. This would help eliminate the side switching "so I ken get mah WArs win perks  !!!".

Or maybe even drop the 'map win perks' entirely and give a very small compensation (say 5 perks in each category) to the side with the lowest lowest numbers when the map is won. This would change the goal of the side switching, with people trying to get to the lowest side, as opposed to the highest numbered side.




Also to steal an idea from another thread, perhaps expierament with a 2 sided war. On Tuesday (or whatever day HTC picks) have an arena with just two countrys. Two completly different country names, say dimonds and hearts? If the community shows it can keep things fun with a two country war, then maybe consider changing the MA's to a 2 country set-up.

[guncrasher]

you want two countries like in the ava?  wonder where we could get that .

semp

[Tank-Ace]

Not particularly, I've always thought that 3 contries was a good idea, as it (usually) gives my at least one place to go if I'm not in the mood for a losing fight.


I'm just curious as to how people will react when they can't ignore the guys on their left and clobber the guys on their right. Will also be interesting to see how quickly people will develop feelings of patriotism for their new and entirerly unrelated countries.

[Chickenrandomness]

careful whatcha wish for. battleground europe had side imbalance problems, so they added a timer, which is extremely annoying when you have to wait 90 seconds just to respawn

[BaldEagl]

So the first idea is basically pre-school everybody's a winner right?  Got it.

What happens when the odds in your two sided war end up at 2:1?

[matt]

2 sides with closer tank spawn points.

[Slade]

Cool idea.  

I don't mind imbalance though.  Not everyone fly's for perk points.  If I find my country is at the point of being greatly outnumbered I just see it as a target rich environment.  

Its all perspective.

[Tank-Ace]

No its not the "everyone wins" system. Its the "its more profitable to kill with a low ENY and then pick up your war loss points than it is to horde" system.

[AWwrgwy]

No its not the "everyone wins" system. Its the "its more profitable to kill with a low ENY and then pick up your war loss points than it is to horde" system.

It is more profitable to fight on the low side than it is to win the war. Kill a P-51 in a Yak, die, and still get 5 perks versus the opposite, being on the side with numbers and kill a P-51 in a Spit XVI, land, and get 0.5 perks.

Three or four sorties on the low side can make more than the perks you are going to get when you "win teh warz!1!"

Also, you don't get the perks for winning unless you are a really good planner and switch sides the day before. If people are switching sides for the perks for winning a map they are wasting their time.



wrongway

[Tank-Ace]

For the skilled people yes, but it seems (to me anyway) that the horde attracts those with lower skill levels or those that are incompetent. This would lessen the country changing and hording to some extent. How much I don't know, but we can't know for certian how anything will affect the game untill we actually see it.


If we're trying to get rid of or shrink the skilless "Win teH Warz!!1" hordes, then I can't really think of a better system that wouldn't involve a major overhaul of the "war" aspect of the game.

[guncrasher]

I fly in a ponyd and get something like 1/2 a perk for every 10 kills.  before i would get a full perk in my spit8 for the same 10 kills.  not sure what perks are for, i got thousands of them and they will only mean something when i get a discount on the monthly bill.  then again i am lucky enough that 15 bucks is not a big deal for now.  there's way too many people who "dont care about score" but who always seem to argue about points and perks.

semp

[Tank-Ace]

I personally don't care about score or perks except as a way to keep a CV going strait so I can land my damaged planes and crash the occational 262. But I do recognize that they're a usefull tool to influence many players. Just because you don't want something it doesn't mean its worthless  .

[Dragon Tamer]

If balancing numbers for all 3 sides is an issue, then try moving the players that are not in a squad to different countries, that would be a good way to balance sides.

[grizz441]

I haven't seen much balancing issue since the change to one arena, but it also wouldn't hurt to allow players to switch teams to the low numbers side at their free will.  This would help balance sides in the short term effectively.  "Low numbers side" would need to be defined.  2 players less than the other two teams shouldn't be "low numbers side".  Maybe if the ratio of the low numbers side to the high numbers side is less than 0.85 or something allow a free switch.

[guncrasher]

I haven't seen much balancing issue since the change to one arena, but it also wouldn't hurt to allow players to switch teams to the low numbers side at their free will.  This would help balance sides in the short term effectively.  "Low numbers side" would need to be defined.  2 players less than the other two teams shouldn't be "low numbers side".  Maybe if the ratio of the low numbers side to the high numbers side is less than 0.85 or something allow a free switch.

does that imply the sides were balanced before when we had two arenas?  or when we had a two hour switch time?  system may not be perfect now, but it allows for less people to switch to horde with whoever side is hording.


semp