Topic: Why 3 sided servers will always be moe balanced and successful than 2 sides.

[Dizzy]

On a three sided server, toward the end when it is clear there will be a winner, the other two sides team against them to prevent their victory like what happened on AOTK2. Balance is achieved of a sort that in the end, no clear winner can be declared.

On a 2 sided server, the losing side always tends to have a few player drop offs which just exacerbate the player imbalance problem and hurt the losing side more turning the game into a landslide victory for the team that munches hexes faster.

To date, there has been no clear way of solving player number imbalance. The problem tends not to be as much as the total number of players a side has, but how quickly those players hex munch. Because we dont know how often a player will play a server or how often they will run missions, player signups and drafts are useless.

The only other way to balance a server is to have players switch sides during the campaign. Unfortunately, this is very unpopular with most RM's and tends to cause serious upset and tempers to flare.

So for future servers, I really dont want to get into another 2 sided server until the issue has been discussed. I feel that a 3rd side that can swing either way will pevent a server blowout and reduce the number of players that drop off the server from the losing side.

Then again, there are a lot of players wjho dislike a 3rd side and wont play a server like that... So a server admin is kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thoughts?

[Bonk]

I always kinda liked the total war setup, with six or more sides... achieves a similar result.

[Pojo92]

A very good point on three or more sided servers.  However:  (And I never encountered this so I don't know) but what happens if you get a draft including members of all three sides in one mission.  Are you able to fire on both of the other sides if you wish (this would seem to me to be the preferable option, leaving open more opportunities for plot-thickening treachery)    IS this what happens or, if it does not, is there a way to configure the server so that that is what happens?  Alternatively, I would think it might be useful to be able to configure it so that "allied" powers would always show as allied in multi-sided missions.

Are either of the above possibilities?  How do/did current servers deal with this?

[Dizzy]

Pojo, thats a script issue, and id rather talk about the 2-3 sided server. But t answer ur question, there isnt a specific script written to do that. 2 of the 3 sides will be allied and it will be team A vs B. And the chance of this happening on a server? Once or twice. Not enough to warrant a script made.

[Kaz]

What if we had a server without feds or klings? This would promote flying other races most usually don't touch. Could this help with the player imbalance problem. An example: H, M vs. G,L,vs.R, ISC  as 1 possible combo.

 As for 2 or 3 sided server, a 2 sided server would be ok as long as the races with the most players are split up. By removing the klings and feds, those players wouldn't necessarily all fly the same race and hopefully bolster the ranks the other races.

[KBF-Nail]

Or what about.

H,G vs M,ISC,VS R,L

That would be fun

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

The downside of a 3 way server would be if two teams gang up on the other team at the start and continue to do so till it is removed from any possible contention, then fight it out between them.

[Dizzy]

I dont like 3 sided servers. But they do work.

What I really want is a 2 sided server with flying geese that are part of the admin team and have nothing to do with the RM's. They get deployed from side to side every several days when team 'x' has 'z' number more hexes than the other team. The upshot is that there wouldnt likely be a runaway server, but the downside is that the map munching may not really go anywhere for either side... Maybe just some ebb and flow. I'd prefer that anyday over a blowout.

[Grim]

Seems to me that 3 sided servers can work but at the same time in a different situation they can't, like what Chuut said in some situations it can lead up to one side getting double teamed. Due to the simple fact that no server is the same and factors such as the sides involved, the particular point in time, discussions/alliances between the sides, it can be difficult to determine what will happen.

So they can be fun and tactically interesting to play, but once one side gets attacked by the other two there is the possibility of it going downhill, players get fed up of facing two sides and leaving the server etc.




 

[Pojo92]

How about "Wild Geese" who could sign on, at will, to even out the player numbers at any given time.  For example:  Player "Wild Goose 1" logs on to the server at 10 PM, sees 10 Coalition and 4 Alliance signed on--he can sign on as an alliance player.  The rule could be that a side could only have wild geese flying for it if the online numbers were even or worse against that side, after factoring in the wild geese.  This would make it more "self-policing" and save the Radmin team from having to dispatch said geese.  This would also allow a side to keep the "spoils of victory" (i.e. hexes won) earned by good strategy and strong individual play.  I like this option better than basing the wild geese on hexes taken because I think it would do a better job of keeping day to day numbers equitable and would not penalize one side for kicking the other sides tail.

The one problem I see with this is that the wild geese would obviously have to be "kept in the dark" WRT the two sides plans/schemes/strategy.  How to do so and still have them be an effective force, I have no idea.

[KBF-Soth]

Eventually the same thing will happen to one side as did in last GW server and look how that went over.

[Hexx]

I think a 6 sided would be cool, although I'm seriously doubting
we have the numbers for it anymore.
Maybe I can get KCW up to 4, hmm

[FPF-DieHard]

How about "Wild Geese" who could sign on, at will, to even out the player numbers at any given time.  For example:  Player "Wild Goose 1" logs on to the server at 10 PM, sees 10 Coalition and 4 Alliance signed on--he can sign on as an alliance player.  The rule could be that a side could only have wild geese flying for it if the online numbers were even or worse against that side, after factoring in the wild geese.  This would make it more "self-policing" and save the Radmin team from having to dispatch said geese.  This would also allow a side to keep the "spoils of victory" (i.e. hexes won) earned by good strategy and strong individual play.  I like this option better than basing the wild geese on hexes taken because I think it would do a better job of keeping day to day numbers equitable and would not penalize one side for kicking the other sides tail.

This might work, change every hour depending on who has the most

[762_XC]

3 sided servers are dumb. Anyone who has played FFA on GSA will know why.

AOTK2 was my last.

[KBFLordKrueg]

The downside of a 3 way server would be if two teams gang up on the other team at the start and continue to do so till it is removed from any possible contention, then fight it out between them.

...and then they flame away on the forums crying foul and say you're trying to deliberatly drive off players....

[KBFLordKrueg]

3 sided servers are dumb. Anyone who has played FFA on GSA will know why.

AOTK2 was my last.

Well said...and I strongly agree...

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Ditto. To h*ll with backroom deals etc. and just have 2 sides fight.

[LordSaxon]

The whole FlyingGeese idea is kaput if the server is entirely hex based for victory. For a "balanced" server my idea is:

..2 sided server.. After 1 week a "defender" and the other "aggressor"are declared by admins. Strictly on hexes gained/numbers on for nutter action, etc.
Place an area on the map centrally and put 3 planets, 1 hex apart from each other, in the hands of the defenders at an offensive value of say...30 VC each.
Each week after the first  of the four week server calls for assaults on one specific planet.Our current rules make the PvP action viable, where an overwhelmed team of say, 3 captains can hold off 6 or 7 attackers. Defenders have no hold on missions in the hex they lost in, where attackers are at 30minutes or so. This can be construed as realistic in many ways.

Also include a rule that the "aggressors" may not attack the planet if no enemy captains are online.
Some may see loopholes where the defenders can log off when severely outnumbered, etc., but I think it will lead to an endless fight of PvP for all, with more people logging on. If the Defenders were to deliberatelly log off to prevent hits on planets, then the attackers could simply surround the planet hexes for 1/3 VC (10 VC's) per planet fully surrounded. This gives directive and enjoyment to those who WANT to fly in their destroyers and endlessly abuse the A.I. Also any planet surrounded is the only 7 hex area that a defender pilot may run missions.

No VC's for PvP kills by attackers,and every kill of any mission on a planet by a defender counts as -1VC torwards that planet(When posted). SO a 30 VC planet-35 live pvp games lost by the attackers would actually net a -5 VC for them.  Keep ship cost extremely low. 10K dreads, 5K BCH, etc. This gives the more casual team a chance to hold off PP loaded nutters in massive ships.

I have other ideas to "flesh out" this rule-set and knock off any loopholes, but the overall idea is feasible; posted here for further ideas.

It's just my idea for a different way to address the real-life issues that seem to grasp the teams we construct. No matter what method we have tried things never seem to be balanced.