Topic: Is it just me or are we supposed to have more alliance pilots?

[Cleaven]

Ya know thats why most of us in GSA don't dyna.  It always ends up as an argument about numbers.  I've done parts of 4 servers (as expendable extra's) and played 2 other servers thru to the end.  At one point or another they all ended up w/ someone or several someone's upset about lopsided numbers.

Ya know what...get over it or try to fix it, but please stop complaining about it.  You guys know exactly who your heavy hitters are player wise.  People who have the time and desire to spend hours playing the dyna.  Pool these guys toghter....divide by 2 and walla...you now have 2 equal groups who are usually on.  Pit these two groups against one another and you have a semblence of balance.  Who cares what race we play I mean come on.  We play for recreation.  I have played every race and most ships 100 times over...I could care less if I'm in a Mirak or a Fed boat.  Sure we have preferences but hey...to make a dyna fun I think people will easily take opposite sides in more equal numbers.

As to the rest of us expendable extras....have us sign up thru a web link and again divide by 2.  You can easily create a form that will help you narrow down the variables.  I.e what race do you prefer....1st choice....2nd choice etc to comb and sort us guys who don't live for dyna.  Pool us into groups as extras for the two main groups.  Not perfect..but workable. 

The idea of capping a server is good in principle, but I agree that we shouldn't descourage people from playing.

Another idea is to put together a pool of extras whos job it would be to balance the server.  I.e if I was a part of this group, I sign on and see that the Feds are down in numbers, so I log back out and log on as a fed.  Our job would be to balance...and thats it.  This is a damn silly idea in retrospect but at least I'm trying and not whining about numbers...my god this gets old quick.

When you deal w/ people nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be.  Either deal with it, fix it or leave...these are your choices, and pretty darn easy ones at that.

V

Even with a balance of raw numbers at the start it is liable to change over time causing the initial set up work to be wasted. And then there is the short term balance as well. Rigth now there are four Alliance players on and only one Coalition captain (Yes Bearslayer I have a screen shot) but the Alliance does not outnumber the Coalition four to one over all. And even if playing numbers were exactly equal there is absolutely no way you can balance total playing time over a two to four week period. During your pre game orgainisation you could get people over or under estimating their playing time further distorting the balance.

What is needed is a system that can allow for changes is raw numbers and handle the variability of playing hours on the fly. This means you cut down on balance planning and don't have to handle any arguements about player numbers, assuming that the system can handle two sides which have a disparity no greater than about 50%.

[Rolling]

Hey, you all know I dont miss a server, but if I cant play reliably, Im not gonna knowingly F#ck up PvP for both me, my allies and even the nasty bumpy headed bastchies (most of whom I like just as much as the Fricken Good Guys) Im flying with just cause I want to play.

Im hoping that my lag problems this server (as opposed to LB5 when lag was fine) are due to Hurricane Charlies having damaged phone lines/nodes/etc and having higher call volume on fewer lines/switches, etc.

Perhaps by GW4 I will be able to connect reliably again. Course, I actually wouldnt mind flying on KCW (Isnt that the next one?) The D7W is a sweet ship.

Wow, AJ.  I didn't know you could talk like this.

You're so different on Eve.  <snicler>

[FPF-DieHard]

What is needed is a system that can allow for changes is raw numbers and handle the variability of playing hours on the fly. This means you cut down on balance planning and don't have to handle any arguements about player numbers, assuming that the system can handle two sides which have a disparity no greater than about 50%.

This can be done.   We can use total missions flown as a multiplyer to determine the value of VCs. 

Best Idea I can think of is start every side with a starting number of VCs based on the territory that they have, say 6 planets worth 50 VCs each.  If the server stalemates, each side gets 300 VCs as a base.   Then take the total number of missions flown on each side and use that as a multiplyer.  If side A ran 20% more missions that Side B, than side A would only get 80% of it's earned VCs.  Side A's revised total for VCs would be 240 to side B getting to full 300. I'm going to try this in the not so far future, if anything it will tell us if there is a factor to D2 victory other than who flies the most missions.

[KBF-Crim]

Ya know thats why most of us in GSA don't dyna.  It always ends up as an argument about numbers.  I've done parts of 4 servers (as expendable extra's) and played 2 other servers thru to the end.  At one point or another they all ended up w/ someone or several someone's upset about lopsided numbers.

Ya know what...get over it or try to fix it, but please stop complaining about it.  You guys know exactly who your heavy hitters are player wise.  People who have the time and desire to spend hours playing the dyna.  Pool these guys toghter....divide by 2 and walla...you now have 2 equal groups who are usually on.  Pit these two groups against one another and you have a semblence of balance.  Who cares what race we play I mean come on.  We play for recreation.  I have played every race and most ships 100 times over...I could care less if I'm in a Mirak or a Fed boat.  Sure we have preferences but hey...to make a dyna fun I think people will easily take opposite sides in more equal numbers.

As to the rest of us expendable extras....have us sign up thru a web link and again divide by 2.  You can easily create a form that will help you narrow down the variables.  I.e what race do you prefer....1st choice....2nd choice etc to comb and sort us guys who don't live for dyna.  Pool us into groups as extras for the two main groups.  Not perfect..but workable.  

The idea of capping a server is good in principle, but I agree that we shouldn't descourage people from playing.

Well...that discourages me from playing...as I fly klingon exclusively...and have for years...

Now you can berate me for it...call me baby names....scoff at me....whatever...but no one can force me to log in and play a race I suck at ,or dont enjoy...I wont sit and play in frustration to be someones intelligent AI...I wouldnt expect anyone else should either...

Going to such a system only means a few more players wont play at all....it wont add anything that would help...

Another idea is to put together a pool of extras whos job it would be to balance the server.  I.e if I was a part of this group, I sign on and see that the Feds are down in numbers, so I log back out and log on as a fed.  Our job would be to balance...and thats it.  This is a damn silly idea in retrospect but at least I'm trying and not whining about numbers...my god this gets old quick.

That was tried allready...it was called flying geese...it didnt work out..

Yes it gets old quick....I played for quite a while on the other side of this coin...Again I point out that the klingon empire was deficient in player numbers for quite a while as many pilots simply gave up and moved on....Only Doggy took the time and effort to recruit the remaining Klingons and rebuild the Black fleet...give us a sence of purpose....and point us at the server...

I must point out....there is NO WAY...that players should still be asking access for forums a week into a campaign....this means leadership isnt leading...period...no way around it...

When you deal w/ people nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be.  Either deal with it, fix it or leave...these are your choices, and pretty darn easy ones at that.

V

My vote is for "deal"....but part of that is to rebuild or inspire the alliance base...

I have NEVER once complained about player numbers...even when on the losing end of things...

When I look and see plenty of alliance pilots here browsing this board instead of on the server...one can only assume they dont want to play...that would be an internal problem rather than an external one....

If the alliance cant muster their own forces...dont expect to get players from your adversaries to help out...

[FPF-DieHard]

That was tried allready...it was called flying geese...it didnt work out..

I thought the "Geese" did work and IDSL was a rather balanced campaign.

[KBF-Crim]

What is needed is a system that can allow for changes is raw numbers and handle the variability of playing hours on the fly. This means you cut down on balance planning and don't have to handle any arguements about player numbers, assuming that the system can handle two sides which have a disparity no greater than about 50%.

This can be done.   We can use total missions flown as a multiplyer to determine the value of VCs. 

Best Idea I can think of is start every side with a starting number of VCs based on the territory that they have, say 6 planets worth 50 VCs each.  If the server stalemates, each side gets 300 VCs as a base.   Then take the total number of missions flown on each side and use that as a multiplyer.  If side A ran 20% more missions that Side B, than side A would only get 80% of it's earned VCs.  Side A's revised total for VCs would be 240 to side B getting to full 300. I'm going to try this in the not so far future, if anything it will tell us if there is a factor to D2 victory other than who flies the most missions.

I'm sorry DH...but this only gives a crutch to the side who cant muster a turnout...this isnt golf...and should NOT be handicapped into equality...

This would also drive off a couple players...

I broke down RDSL and the difference in missions run was only 6 missions per hour....hardly something that can be made up for with any kind of balance system...the only way to make up for 6 missions an hour is for somebody to RUN THEM....

I think a better solution would be to redefine what "victory" is....an outnumbered force should claim victory by simply holding key territory...rather than having to take enemy turf when out numbered....

This would require fluid VC's.....but it also runs the risk of turning off the aggressing force who may feel they are in a wild goose chase...

[FPF-DieHard]

This would also drive off a couple players...

More than a blowout does?  I doubt that.

Before anyone jumps in on this, we are speaking in hypothetical terms. 

You are right though to some degree, within 10% or so I do not think an imbalance exists.

Crim, how can a side that runs less missions win a server unless they get an overwhelming disparaty in PvP VCs?  Even in most cases, the VCs are set up so that isn't possible.

[FPF-AJTK]

Hey, you all know I dont miss a server, but if I cant play reliably, Im not gonna knowingly F#ck up PvP for both me, my allies and even the nasty bumpy headed bastchies (most of whom I like just as much as the Fricken Good Guys) Im flying with just cause I want to play.

Im hoping that my lag problems this server (as opposed to LB5 when lag was fine) are due to Hurricane Charlies having damaged phone lines/nodes/etc and having higher call volume on fewer lines/switches, etc.

Perhaps by GW4 I will be able to connect reliably again. Course, I actually wouldnt mind flying on KCW (Isnt that the next one?) The D7W is a sweet ship.

Wow, AJ.  I didn't know you could talk like this.

You're so different on Eve.  <snicler>

*Personal note to self: Wait till Kimmy is outfitted for mining and only carrying mining drones, then LIGHT HER AZZ UP!*
<smirk>

[KBF-Crim]

That was tried allready...it was called flying geese...it didnt work out..

I thought the "Geese" did work and IDSL was a rather balanced campaign.

Well...in all honesty...it pissed off quite a few players who felt that sending some of your best pilots to fight for the other team was kinda cheesy in itself...

This also required that the Geese dont have access to the racial forums so that sensitive info wont be passed to the commanders of the opposing team...

To me....this is like the axis powers asking the allies to donate a some British and American troops to even out losing battles in europe...

Or for churchill to ask for some luftwaffa pilots to switch sides and fly for the RAF in the battle of britton...

Now I realize this isnt a "real" war...we arent assigned to our fronts 24/7...and people such as myself CANT fly for more than a few hours at a time.....

But for guys to log on...see themselves out numbered..and simply log off...smacks of "lack of commitment"...and one wonders....if all those guys had stayed on a while longer...how many others would log on...see pilots on their side playing...and stay also...

I really dont want to point fingers....but I play when I can play...regardless of how many of my brothers are online...and regardless of what speed my drones are...or what ships are in my shipyards...I stand and fight...even If I am alone...

I think you know me well enough to see the truth in that...I may go out fast....bit I go out in a blaze brother...and I dont go willingly...

I think that before any kind of system fix is tried...people need to be polled as to the direct reasons they arent flying....and address those issues first...

Being outnumbered sucks donkey shwang....fighting a battel you know you will lose also sucks...

But once and a while 200 guys stand off 2000....even when they could have run for the hills...

It's about commitment to fight...even with no hope of victory.

[FPF-DieHard]

To me....this is like the axis powers asking the allies to donate a some British and American troops to even out losing battles in europe...

No, it's more like if you show up to play basketball and bring 2 friends with you and I show up with 4.  Do we play 4v4 or 3v5?

This is a game, not a war.

[KBF-Crim]

This would also drive off a couple players...

More than a blowout does?  I doubt that.

You have to ask how the blowout happens in the first place....

[KBF-Crim]

To me....this is like the axis powers asking the allies to donate a some British and American troops to even out losing battles in europe...

No, it's more like if you show up to play basketball and bring 2 friends with you and I show up with 4.  Do we play 4v4 or 3v5?

This is a game, not a war.

Ok...maybe I'm beating around the bush to much in order to be diplomatic...

Using your anology correctly..

It's like having 4 of your friends promise to play B-ball with you against 5 other guys...

Only 2 of those guys drive in the parking lot....see who your playing...and bail out on you...

In game terms ,we would call that a forfiet....in war terms we call it desertion.


In your anology...

You should address you friends inablity to keep a promise to play B-ball ,rather than berate the other guys for showing up with 5 players like they said they would...

[FPF-DieHard]

You should address you friends inablity to keep a promise to play B-ball ,rather than berate the other guys for showing up with 5 players like they said they would...

Or only play with people you like.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I'm sorry DH...but this only gives a crutch to the side who cant muster a turnout...this isnt golf...and should NOT be handicapped into equality...

Crim I would like to point out that even though several of Coalition players have made the point that it was through their effort in getting their player to show (wanted to say patted themselves on the back, but it sounds to harsh) up that has lead to the numbers advantage, and therefore by implication that the Alliance has been a bit lacks in this effort leading to their own problems, there has been no acknowledgement of the fact that the  GW server setup for the first 2 campaigns probably did more to encourage this than personnel effort and organizational skills. You even seem to have accidentally hit on the reasons why without coming to the logical conclusion as to why this is which is that it is a lot easy to convince the Coalition player base (which is build around the Klingon empire) to fly on a server that allows them to fly their preferred race than it is to convince players to fly a race they may have never had any experience with and is not their preferred race (Kzin in GW1 and Hydran in GW2). On top of that it seems that the Alliance core (Feds) due to some hard feelings  and a perception of slight after the restart of GW2 and the restricting of the race they invested a lot of time training in (LDR), have decided to try other things instead of GW3. This along with several other factors, namely the GDA going Coalition and, the arrival of the KHH from GZ has probably had more to do with the numbers situation than any efforts to get players out of the wood work, but folks always seem to want to look to reasons that have to do with blaming and demeaning the real effort of those that show up to play regardless of the odds, while falsely believing that their efforts are somehow more noble and deserving even though circumstance beyond there control actually have more to do with this than anything else. To be fair I saw the exact same behavior and lack of understanding from the Alliance when the circumstances of the pre-restart GW2 campaign made playing Coalition to much of a chore to be enjoyable do to the double fighters bug. Players simply jump to the conclusion that the other side is just whining without ever taking the time an effort to understand thing from the other perspective and want to tell them to suck it up. What everyone fails to realize is that this is a game that most play for fun, and if it isn't fun for one side or the other then everyone loses, unless you really like playing with yourself.

I broke down RDSL and the difference in missions run was only 6 missions per hour....hardly something that can be made up for with any kind of balance system...the only way to make up for 6 missions an hour is for somebody to RUN THEM....

No disrespect to Skull but RDSL was propably to radical and experiment to be considered as much of an example of anything. It tested out some interesting concepts with the combined ship list and the FOs as spoilers/balance counter-weights but was just to plagued by tech issues and unintended consequences to be much of a barometer of anything.

I think a better solution would be to redefine what "victory" is....an outnumbered force should claim victory by simply holding key territory...rather than having to take enemy turf when out numbered....

This would require fluid VC's.....but it also runs the risk of turning off the aggressing force who may feel they are in a wild goose chase...

The main problem with fluid VCs is exactly what you mention, since it is impossible to predict preserver with side will need to be the defending vs advancing side VCs would need to be adjustable mid campaign, which will always lead to players feeling their hard work might just be undone mid server, making it really hard to muster the will to play. That is precisely why I like the idea of a total missions run modify being applied to EVENLY DIVIDED STATIC VCs ONLY, as this can be setup pre-campaign and therefore not open to allegations of subjective bias of the admins when determining how o shift VCs mid campaign. I make the point in CAPs about static VCs because they are the only ones directly effected by player numbers, PvP VCs are not and should fall where they lie. This way a pure numbers imbalance as well as the nutter factor will not always be the sole determining factor in campaigns, but rather how well you use those missions. I would also make it such that the modifying of the VCs based the missions flown ratio only take effect if the imbalance in missions flown hit a certain threshold, say a difference of more than 10-20% to one side or the other.

[FPF-DieHard]

. . . unless you really like playing with yourself.

Just highlighting for all to see.  I'll let somebody more whitty than I make the pun.

[KBF-Crim]

Hmmm....ok...then you were never serious about Playing B-ball in the first place...

[Kroma BaSyl]

It's like having 4 of your friends promise to play B-ball with you against 5 other guys...

Only 2 of those guys drive in the parking lot....see who your playing...and bail out on you...

In game terms ,we would call that a forfiet....in war terms we call it desertion.


In your anology...

You should address you friends inablity to keep a promise to play B-ball ,rather than berate the other guys for showing up with 5 players like they said they would...

You seem to be under the impression that some promise was broken. I know of no promises having ever been been made.

I personnelly care less about whether my team wins or loses but I know that if there isn't at least the semblance of a fair and balanced game then everyone loses in the quest to have a little fun. Forfiets suck, for all that enjoy the game play more than the bragging rights.

[FPF-DieHard]

Hmmm....ok...then you were never serious about Playing B-ball in the first place...

Football, baseball, and wrestling were my sports, b-ball was only for fun, never got good at it.  My proudest moment was getting 3 fouls in my 7th grade father-son game.    

[Kroma BaSyl]

Hmmm....ok...then you were never serious about Playing B-ball in the first place...

Wrong, he simply cared more about the playing than the winning.

[KBF-Crim]

It's like having 4 of your friends promise to play B-ball with you against 5 other guys...

Only 2 of those guys drive in the parking lot....see who your playing...and bail out on you...

In game terms ,we would call that a forfiet....in war terms we call it desertion.


In your anology...

You should address you friends inablity to keep a promise to play B-ball ,rather than berate the other guys for showing up with 5 players like they said they would...

You seem to be under the impression that some promise was broken. I know of no promises having ever been been made.

I personnelly care less about whether my team wins or loses but I know that if there isn't at least the semblance of a fair and balanced game then everyone loses in the quest to have a little fun. Forfiets suck, for all that enjoy the game play more than the bragging rights.

First...it was anology...

Second...when people SAY they will play...and then dont show up...a promise IS broken....whatever the game...