Team Balancing Discussion

[csThor]

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.

Okay, then let me state thefollowing: You will not find "balance" on an open DF server. The audience is far too diverse for that. Other people in other sims have tried to solve that issue and failed.

Based on what BlackDog said I think it's (ATM at least) a question of mission design and scripting, or rather the lack of sufficiently advanced designs and scripts, since right now incorporating the level bombers is a technical problem (with the AI), a gameplay problem (Ju 88 compass bug, Blenheim handling issues etc) and last but not least a scoring problem (no way to assess damage to a static area target, yet). I have been an advocate of mission designs which adhere to basic historical facts (planeset, numbers, target categories etc) while balancing imbalances (planeset and numbers) via target selection and number of goals to achieve. This way an imbalance in planeset (i.e. one side has a considerable technological advantage) and/or numbers can be circumvented by making the side with the advantages go for more targets than the disadvantaged side. This forces players to cooperate more, and by giving aerial victories very little impact in the grand scheme of things the designer can attribute far more importance to bombers and Stukas than common on DF servers, the steady gangbang will, while not being totally removed, be pushed back into a niche. SNAFU made missions and a concept which goes this way, it's just the engine which ain't up to it, yet, and we as a community do not have the tools to really work with the potential of this sim, yet. That'll take time ...

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by csThor

Okay, then let me state thefollowing: You will not find "balance" on an open DF server. The audience is far too diverse for that. Other people in other sims have tried to solve that issue and failed.

Based on what BlackDog said I think it's (ATM at least) a question of mission design and scripting, or rather the lack of sufficiently advanced designs and scripts, since right now incorporating the level bombers is a technical problem (with the AI), a gameplay problem (Ju 88 compass bug, Blenheim handling issues etc) and last but not least a scoring problem (no way to assess damage to a static area target, yet). I have been an advocate of mission designs which adhere to basic historical facts (planeset, numbers, target categories etc) while balancing imbalances (planeset and numbers) via target selection and number of goals to achieve. This way an imbalance in planeset (i.e. one side has a considerable technological advantage) and/or numbers can be circumvented by making the side with the advantages go for more targets than the disadvantaged side. This forces players to cooperate more, and by giving aerial victories very little impact in the grand scheme of things the designer can attribute far more importance to bombers and Stukas than common on DF servers, the steady gangbang will, while not being totally removed, be pushed back into a niche. SNAFU made missions and a concept which goes this way, it's just the engine which ain't up to it, yet, and we as a community do not have the tools to really work with the potential of this sim, yet. That'll take time ...

Agreed but I don't see ATAG as a dogfight server and I am sure Bliss, Boris and Watchman do either!

[GF_Mastiff]

Well, I'll chime in now. Why don't we see some historical fuel cost for the Sim?

I thought the FM was such that they fly over to England and only had 15 to 20 minutes of Fuel left? I know that's enough time to do what ever but it would sure make for Aircraft management?

[robtek]

You wont find the often quoted 15 to 20 min. fighting time for the 109 because that number was created at a time were the 109 had to fly to a meeting point, wait there for the bombers, then escort the bombers, which didn't fly the direct way, to London and then back.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by robtek

You wont find the often quoted 15 to 20 min. fighting time for the 109 because that number was created at a time were the 109 had to fly to a meeting point, wait there for the bombers, then escort the bombers, which didn't fly the direct way, to London and then back.

Ah good point.

[recoilfx]

hehe. I never take a full tank with me anyways. 40% is more than enough for a fighter sweep sortie.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

Well, I'll chime in now. Why don't we see some historical fuel cost for the Sim?

I thought the FM was such that they fly over to England and only had 15 to 20 minutes of Fuel left? I know that's enough time to do what ever but it would sure make for Aircraft management?

Good point, being wondering this myself!

[csThor]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Agreed but I don't see ATAG as a dogfight server and I am sure Bliss, Boris and Watchman do either!

I was using the term dogfight server in the sense of an open dedicated server. Because that is pretty much all that the engine currently allows for. People come and go as they please, doing stuff they want.

[Untamo]

A bit off topic but: I have yet to see for well briefed missions with markings on the map to show what needs to be bombed, what protected etc. (Haven't been flying CloD for a couple of weeks though, so maybe that has changed.) The briefing tab is a bit cumbersome as you have to switch between it and the map to get to your head where the targets are, and as X% of people can't be arsed to read it, the map markings would at least maybe direct the furballers to the right fighting areas.

[SNAFU]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Agreed but I don't see ATAG as a dogfight server and I am sure Bliss, Boris and Watchman do either!

I am sure the ATAG Team doesn´t want their server to go down the way of "airquake" as the old 1946 Spits vs 109 server did some day some years ago, but that is the fate of every highly populated server with narrowed battle zone or small map and without strict guidance. 90% of players do not care of the objective, they just take off and want instant action, that is ok, I will not tell other people how to spent their sparetime, but the result is what I saw 99% of my time on the ATAG server - take off, climb a little to 2km head for the next enemy coast, find something to shoot at, die crashing or simply press ESC if feelinig ambarrased, repeat... sometimes you might find a team which hooks up together and does well, but in the end, they also do the same, but just as a team, without any purpose, no goal - just for the action. That`s what I call "airquake". It is hard to get small numbers of players on an objective, but it is possible (especially with the endless options we have with C#). But it is almost impossible to keep players on objectives, if you have a high player density, so I am not blaming anyone, its just human nature. That was one of the main reasons, why I did not play CloD for a month now. Offline is fun for mission building, but you cannot use missions in multiplayer due to CTDs and singleplayer playing mission you made yourself is... well... Online you just see this airquake, nothing else available.

If ATAG Team would try to prevent the airquake, by using the whole BoB map and not only 15-20% of the area and enforcing players to care for their lives by death-count-penalty and ESC penalty options, the player numbers would drop to a level, it would be meaningless - therefore I do not see any solution myself - besides using the Banks Coop System, which really sounds promising and would even solve any balancing issue.

But in the end the whole situation put me off CloD I didn´t try and will not spent my rare sparetime on this any longer... I just try to keep track of the progress and in touch with what is online ongoing, therefore I sometimes jump in for an hour but without any joy.