Team Balancing Discussion

[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.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 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.

You'll never catch Sniper in a IIa: he's a Hurricane Rotol pilot through and through! LOL He sure knows how to fly those Rotols, too!

I usually leave the IIa's for the others; the other night when I actually did grab one Kellar sent me into the drink after I was wheels up. Figured that was "a sign". LOL

Although the Rotol is faster than the Ia (how historical is THAT??), I make the mistake of flying it like a Spit......and find out over and over that a Rotol stalls out real good....

The Ia definitely needs a little more ooooomph in the engine dept, but it does fly sweet. The IIa is just such a temptation!

[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.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

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

Cuz the aaa is shyte

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Cuz the aaa is shyte

Yes maybe more AA that's would make life harder for the strafers

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

[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

There should be enough AA to crush single attackers and force coordinated attacks by multiple aircraft. If the AA is not a threat then it should be fixed by the devs. If there isn't enough AA around the fields then the server owner must want vulching on their server, or the AA is a resource hog (which may not be possible to fix without faster PCs).

[5./JG27.Farber]

Sorry Krupi, Im not really with you on this one although I do sympathise you. As some one else said it does swing both ways. I actually prefer it when there are more reds, it means no out of the blue 109 is going to steal my kill and when I go to ID an aircraft its more than likely hostile


During the Multisquad Battle of Britain Campaign 5./JG27 ran reds out numbered blue 2:1! So it would be interesting to know how many pilots who would allie themselves red are actually flying blue because they currently prefer some aspects of blue aircraft over there usual kites. For example: Only blenhiem for bombing, prop pitch in hurri spit, no cannons etc... Whereas blue has a wider range currently in the game.

I also agree with SNAFU. If the objectives where much more about the bombers and the targets say "won the map" and made it rotate. This would focus the fighter elements in attack and defence of the bombers...

I do not think forcing team balance by script is a good idea. Placing more AA to deter vulchers is obviously not working and I for one have fell victim to this AA whilst dogfighting near an enemy airfield on several occasions when I have been pilot killed by Bofors 40mm AA... You can ban vulching with guns and just leave bombs but you take away the historical element. Although I do agree some people take vulching far to far and its just silly...

S!

[addman]

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

There should be enough AA to crush single attackers and force coordinated attacks by multiple aircraft. If the AA is not a threat then it should be fixed by the devs. If there isn't enough AA around the fields then the server owner must want vulching on their server, or the AA is a resource hog (which may not be possible to fix without faster PCs).

Yes, I guess those are the most probable reasons.

1. AA can't hit a barn door 5 meters away

2. Too much AA will bring ANY PC to it's knees and it still won't hit anything

We'll just have to wait for improvements in upcoming patches.