PDA

View Full Version : Are you looking for balance?



crazyivan1970
11-17-2005, 11:24 AM
Greetings,

Just a question to everyone in order to improve VFC COOPs night.
Quiet often i hear people complaining about balance... That includes everything, plane selected for the mission, number of planes selected...etc etc. I have been accused of being LW fanboy, just as much as being VVS one, or American... you name it. Does it bother me...no, not really. When we build our missions, we are trying to make up stuff as less as possible, dangling around with given planes and trying to get experiance as close to what happened 60+ years ago as we can. 99% of COOPs are based on the memoirs. But still... people don`t like the fact that in 1941 Rata`s have to face double in numbers of 109s or in 1944 LW was facing overwhelming odds. So, what is the general line should be... Stick to historic encounters or satisfy game balance?

Any thoughts?

dazza9806482
11-17-2005, 11:27 AM
I think offline historical accuracy is good, like in enforcers VVS campaign.

online though it sucks to lose, and i think i would lean towards more of a competition and less of a rigid accuracy

allmenroder
11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
I like the coops where the player is placed in the same situation as the real life counterpart was: so, at 25,000ft in an ME 109 loaded to kill B17s and is jumped by the flight of P51s.

Of course, then we hear, the fight was not really fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DxyFlyr
11-17-2005, 11:58 AM
I like flying both types of coops... that is... fair ones and unfair ones. Maybe you could balance the number of fair/unfair coops you host. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Even odds seem to be preferred by most, but where's the challange in that? You can't beat a good "impossible mission" every now and then. They are the one's I always remember the next day.

Also, there are lots of ways to even up the odds without limiting the coop to 8 vs 8 of similar plane types. Who hosted that one the other night with the bevy of brewsters vs a few zeros? You'd think you would mop up in that zero, but when the brewsters keep coming the odds get more even.

JG52Uther
11-17-2005, 12:03 PM
Never flown in one of your coops Ivan,but i would go for accuracy every time.

JuHa-
11-17-2005, 12:26 PM
Might be good to mention beforehand that side x is going to be in disadvantage from beginning.

Yes, I prefer accurate scenarios as long as everyone flying knows what's happening. Usual
expetation might be that missions are balanced, so this should taken into account.

Aviar
11-17-2005, 12:38 PM
This is the dilemma that faces most mission builders. Unfortunately, the cold truth is that no matter which direction you take, there will always be some who are 'upset' with any particular mission.

Ultimately, I think the mission builder needs to please only himself\herself and hope that others also enjoy the gameplay.

That being said, I think the briefing can be vital in preparing the player for the upcoming mission. It should be well written and explain to the player just exactly what is expected of them (and what to possibly expect).

After all, war is not 'fair' or 'even'. If you want realism, sometimes you have to be on the losing side...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

**As a side note, I wish I had button that would send a nice-sized electrical shock to the the player(s) that did not even look at my coop briefing....but now when the mission has started is asking.."Hey, what's our mission?". This would please me to no end and would increase my enthusiasm for hosting.

Aviar

LilHorse
11-17-2005, 12:56 PM
Historic everytime.

Jaws2002
11-17-2005, 01:17 PM
Just stick with what you were doing. Your Coops are great and is always fun...no matter how bad I get owned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif. No mater how you do it there will always be someone asking for 190A6 instead of A5 or Spit Mk VIII CW instead Mk IXc.
Balance is for dogfight servers,as long as you keep it historical there is nothing to complain about. That's what they had back then and that's what they had to fly.
The Romanians would have liked to have K4's or D9's to fight the American bombers and their escorting P-51's over Ploesti in 1944, but they had to go up with the IAR-80/81 because that's what they had.

georgeo76
11-17-2005, 01:20 PM
I don't think it would hurt if you included some missions geared for quick action, as long as the historic stuff is still there.


You draw a large crowd there should be a large variety of missions. Maybe you would consider an earlier start time, to allow for even more missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
11-17-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
I don't think it would hurt if you included some missions geared for quick action, as long as the historic stuff is still there.


You draw a large crowd there should be a large variety of missions. Maybe you would consider an earlier start time, to allow for even more missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think you completely miss the point of what coops are about...

And no, balance is not required, only a good challenge, and pilots with guts...

Troll2k
11-17-2005, 05:50 PM
When I flipped my coin it landed on its edge.

polak5
11-17-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
I don't think it would hurt if you included some missions geared for quick action, as long as the historic stuff is still there.


You draw a large crowd there should be a large variety of missions. Maybe you would consider an earlier start time, to allow for even more missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think you completely miss the point of what coops are about...

And no, balance is not required, only a good challenge, and pilots with guts... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

were do i sign http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
11-17-2005, 06:54 PM
The key here is in the mission briefs: make fliers AWARE before they fly if the odds are against them, in terms of numbers, mission, aircraft matchup, etc. Also, REMIND them more than once that the mission is to "do thus-and-so, NOT be ace in a day". And, use the history to back up why it is that way. That should keep you from being labeled a fanboi of any particular side.

If they can't take those hints and fly a mission with an eye towards accomplishing the set goals rather than their own agenda, or if they don't bother to even read it before they select their plane and get in over their head, then scr*w 'em.

Don't always write scenarios for balance. That's just a subterfuge for, "Write the scenario so that I have the advantage".

I don't see much action anywhere that has anything to do with history, and it's a big hole in my entire experience with this sim. So don't abandon good, realistic missions!! We need MORE of 'em, not less.

VW-IceFire
11-17-2005, 06:57 PM
Keep em historical and gritty. Its not all roses...

There should be winnable objectives and enough possibility to fight back given the right level of teamwork and pilot skill.

neural_dream
11-17-2005, 08:45 PM
historical accuracy

Balance is easy to find elsewhere. Historical accuracy is what we miss.

Dukayn_450
11-17-2005, 08:51 PM
Historical all the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Freelancer-1
11-17-2005, 10:25 PM
I've not flown your co-ops before so I'm not sure how quickly they fill up. But the problem I've found in the wars (VOW2) is that the team that is the "underdog" takes forever to fill.

So go historical if your on coms. Keeps you from getting too bored waiting. Go for balanced if you're on a schedule.

If you are asking for a preference though, I say historical all the way! But then, I'm the guy flying an N1 on WarClouds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
11-17-2005, 10:34 PM
I think a balance between the 2 is good.

Rather than having 12 blue planes facing 300 red at the end of the war, let red have a few extra - ratio 60/40.

If one team have worse planes AND are out numbered then the weaker team is always going to be short of players, unless there are a lot of honourable 'team fillers' on the server (the guys who sacrifice their play to keep the teams even, respect)

R_Mutt
11-18-2005, 05:53 AM
Ivan, remember the Coop where the luftwaffe was straffed on the tarmac and like 3-4 planes got up, only to be further vulched. Well that was historic and as I remember not fun at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Ivan's heard this from me before, but when you wait (sometimes a long time) to fly in our Coop, it sucks to feel as though your flying experience was there only to make someone elses more enjoyable. AKA bait. I've flown a lot of coop's where I fealt as bait, and that's not a positive experience.

The balance of historic with fun factor always worked best for me and was usually my desire when making coop's. Sink the Yamato is probably the most unbalanced I ever made. I added Japanese planes and A-20's to represent torpedo bombing, even though the Yamato had no aircover and there were no a-20's. Just to add a fun factor to it.

Bearcat99
11-18-2005, 06:46 AM
I have never had a bad time in a VFC coop regardless to scenario or laneset so.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
11-18-2005, 12:07 PM
Another key:

Choose your historical co-op subjects wisely.

It's like Pearl Harbor: great for a single player (Japanese), terrible for a co-op (if modelled properly). But then, perhaps the death ride of the torpedo bombers at Midway might be a decent co-op if you allow the Americans flexibility to change alts, alter approaches, or coordinate better with escort fighters so they don't get slaughtered nearly to a man.

Some missions should be difficult, with odds stacked against you. The expectation needs to be set in the briefing that basically says: "this won't be easy", or "you'll be badly outnumbered and lucky to survive". At that point if somebody wants a turkey shoot where HE has all the advantages, he can opt out like the self-serving chicken he is. Or, again, set expectations to GET THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. If that involves avoiding straight up combat with the numerous enemy and just bombing one key bridge and running home to tell the tale, that can be a great scenario; provided the attacker doesn't try to turn it into a knock-down drag out fight where he doesn't have a prayer.

I really think that the Brief is the place to get people situated to expect all kinds of different action, different levels of challenge, etc.

crazyivan1970
11-18-2005, 12:11 PM
There is one problem with brief Stig... people afraid to look at it. Dont know if it`s true or not... but people who gets stuck in the Ready Screen (known bug) when game launches claim that they were reading brief before.... so nobody looks lol.

crazyivan1970
11-18-2005, 12:12 PM
Thanks for your comments everyone, will take it under consideration http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers!

Stigler_9_JG52
11-18-2005, 02:08 PM
Well, the game could crash, too, and you wouldn't play either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Can't account for everything.

That's no excuse for not reading the brief. Everyone should be expected to read it.

georgeo76
11-18-2005, 02:11 PM
Will you be trying to balance thingst tonight Ivan?

crazyivan1970
11-18-2005, 03:20 PM
Well after my two best guys said that i should... do i have other choice? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
11-18-2005, 04:34 PM
people like to win & blow stuff up & shoot others down

its why DF rooms & coops get people who join the side with the best planes

outside of an obvious historical mission balance is needed

crazyivan1970
11-18-2005, 07:06 PM
Might not be any COOPs tonight... ISP is killing me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Upload only 300kbps ............

carguy_
11-19-2005, 01:18 AM
Naaah,generic coops should be made with even planesets.People who like it historical play wars.I myself treat coops as a nice relax where tactics aren`t really vital.I also like to show that the P51 is a superb plane.

IMHO the most popular coops are Me109G6 vs LaGGS65,FW190 vs P47 and latewar 109 vs SpitsIX.
You don`t accomplish nothing through coops,meaning that next coop will mostly be a different generic sortie whereas in wars you lose territory,get stats and have to spare every plane you got because if you lose your machine,your airfield is going to need resources being delivered.

All I see that in LW bomber busting coops all 109 are made with user custom loadout whereas it should be two MG151/20 or MK108 pods.If you have a single MK108 you will shoot two or maybe three bombers.Remember that out of 8 attacking fighters maybe 4 will be able to dodge the escort and get to engage bombers.You see,people don`t care that after the end of action,60% of thosee heavy 4 engine bombers 60% will be still in air ready to bomb.People don`t want to be sittin ducks for the escort(ie both gunpods make an elephant out of a 109) AND they want to engage bombers.Nor it is effective nor it is historical.

LeadSpitter_
11-19-2005, 01:56 AM
historical is most balanced and what I prefer. Coops are fun regaurdless no matter what side or planetypes so it doesnt really matter what you fly in 4.02 if you fly it correctly, theres usually more players on one side then the other also.

F19_Ob
11-19-2005, 03:58 AM
Hello Ivan.

I have contemplated the matter of balance for some time. To me COOP's and DF are very different.

In a COOP the players are more team-mates than in DF so if the planeset is unbalanced it doesn't matter asmuch as in DF servers where people fly as lonewolfs in a higher degree and drop off and in frequently.

If for example the COOP depicts a historical battle where the Russians are slaughtered because they had too few, and inferior planes, it still can be fun to fly that mission on the losing side if one gets the story behind the mission first. So in coop's u can do what u like.

DF however is something else. It's more a competition, like any other game or sport(equal chance to win is nescessary). This means that balanced planesets are a must. I jokingly make parabels like; Imagine a game of tennis where one of the players have no racket and sits in a wheelchair. The other one is a top athlete and have top gear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Unacceptable ofcourse and this is the thought one should have in the back of the head when making DF missions.
I don't mean that teams must be 'exactly' balanced, only see to it that one side is not overwhelmingly superior.
Since also paticipants drop in and can go over to the other side anytime on DF-servers, some clever thinking is required to avoid failiure of gameplay.
People tend to choose the best ride available.
This means that if one fails with the planeset the mission will be reduced to "air-quake", wich is ok if the mapmaker intended that.

My standard example when talking about balanced planesets is the "Stuka vs P11".
On DF maps wich depict the Polish campaign I sometimes choose the stuka to demonstrate that against P11 it is an air-superiority fighter (much faster than P11), and that Bf109's are unnescessary because the stukas may slaughter the p11's on their own.
My standard score with the stuka is 3 or 4 p-11's per sortie.
Bf109's ofcourse were there too but it's superiority over the P11 becomes silly in a competition. Sometimes I choose the 109 to end the tragedy fast. These times I may down up to eight or nine p11's per sortie wich doesn't feel very historical anyway.

The unfortunate (standard) thing that often happens on polish maps is at the blue side still chooses 109's and that means if the teams are even the p11's will stand no chance. Even if the teams were planned so the blue side had 10 and red 20 the Messers still easily would win.
Ofcourse one reason for unbalanced planesets is the mapmakers lack of knowledge of planes performance versus eachother, but one really should plan balanced planesets with peoples tendency to choose the best plane, in the back of the head.

A chain of events:
What unbalanced planesets lead to as default is that most will choose the best planes, and that generally leads to one side getting fewer players (if one side has better rides), and that in turn means that the lesser side, already at disadvantage in planes also will get the disadvantage in numbers, wich causes slaughter on the lesser side, wich leads to them quiting or going over to the winning side, wich in the end leads to that silly (but standard) team balance where most fly on the side with better rides and slaughter the few on the lesser side.

Well a few thoughts.

Fish6891
11-19-2005, 04:06 AM
Can you imagine the what monotony that would be intrinsic to a continuous chain of "Balanced" missions? It would fundamentally be the same schie$$ over and over again!

Its the challenge of a tip in the scales, gargantuan or small, historical or non-historical, that adds some real and palpable variety and spice to coop missions.

Don't listen to these communists Ivan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tully__
11-19-2005, 04:07 AM
I would go for a split between balance and historical, with the scales tipped a little more towards historical. Truly historical missions can be extremely demoralising, particularly to the new coop participant. Easing of the historical imbalance just a bit can make the experience lots more entertaining without losing much on the educational or simulation side.

F19_Ob
11-19-2005, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Fish6891:
Can you imagine the what monotony that would be intrinsic to a continuous chain of "Balanced" missions? It would fundamentally be the same schie$$ over and over again!

Its the challenge of a tip in the scales, gargantuan or small, historical or non-historical, that adds some real and palpable variety and spice to coop missions.

Don't listen to these communists Ivan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I doubt that balance hinders mapmakers in the creative process when making missions but does require some knowledge of the planes performances.
Unbalanced planesets are however easy and quicker to make and those are also the most abundant on DF servers.

U said:
"Can you imagine the what monotony that would be intrinsic to a continuous chain of "Balanced" missions? It would fundamentally be the same schie$$ over and over again!"

Why monotony? Balanced does not mean that every mission or planeset is the same. There is no limit on variation.
In a historical planeset there really never can be exact balance, but one can see to it that one side does not get owerwhelming superiority by numbers or planesets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fish6891
11-19-2005, 05:58 AM
I see what your saying Ob, but regardless of varying planeset and mission, fundamentally the coop doesn't change in the sense that it becomes the realization of the following equation

Objective + Planes + 50-50 Odds = Planes rumble over objective + one side wins.

On the other hand, when the balance is tipped and one side is at a disadvantage, that side is forced to develope a strategy and use good tactics in order to defeat its opponent.

Sure its possible to get that from a balanced coop, but it simply doesnt happen due to the simple nature of such coops, its always the same clash of the colors.

From what I've seen, unbalanced coops tend to bring out the best in the pilots flying the more desperate side in particular. I guess just knowing the odds are against them forces them to concoct a way to not get 0wned, cuz no one likes getting 0wned.

I'm not saying that balanced coops are all boring, I'm just saying that I honestly find I have more fun when flying "Turn the Tide" style coops, and that I don't believe they should be amputated from the list of coops run by VFC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif