"Soft Balancing" Multiplayer.

[PixelHunter]

I think there are a few Issues I'd like to see addressed before Release of the game that have effected other similar titles.

Firstly, Is having a server selectable "auto balance" system. Yes, I know flying with all 25 of your buddies is fun, but at some point it becomes very detrimental to a community where one faction that has "an advantage" has much more frequent occurrences of team stacks. we've all seen 2:1+ odds servers in other titles. I hope the developers will allow servers to correct this automatically if desired

Second: I want to address the elephant in the room: the Zero. It's got a few pretty big things going for it, chiefly firepower, speed, climb and maneuverability. Yes, the wildcat and P-40 have a few strengths to exploit, but in a combat sim environment the Zero's weaknesses likely will not translate overall into what eventually became evident in real life (crew survivability and airframe durability). Experienced zero jocks can just jump into another one after virtually auguring in and you'll never run out of digital zeros. How do the Devs plan on keeping things fair but not compromising historical accuracy?  

Thirdly, Alongside this, we now also see a situation (like other titles) where cannon armed aircraft are going up against array's of .50BMG. will the damage model be detailed enough to bring these two systems to more or less equality? I hope that it will. 

 

thanks

Pixel 

            

 

[Trooper117]

I think we are a long, long way away from having these questions answered... it may take many months before we even have a couple of aircraft and a carrier  to even view as more or less complete in a DD, let alone get our hands on.

 

[PixelHunter]

13 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I think we are a long, long way away from having these questions answered... it may take many months before we even have a couple of aircraft and a carrier  to even view as more or less complete in a DD, let alone get our hands on.

 

that may be true. It was just a few things I've had rolling around in my head that have prevented other titles from greatness

edit: and oh I guess I just wanted to speak up early about the issue 

Edited August 3, 2023 by PixelHunter

[Gambit21]

Let’s leave “equality” out if discussion please. 
 

Model things accurately, fly what you want. Some of my most memorable sorties in 46 were from being the only “human” Zero. Good times.

 

 

[PikeStance]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:07 PM, PixelHunter said:

I think there are a few Issues I'd like to see addressed before Release of the game that have effected other similar titles.

Firstly, Is having a server selectable "auto balance" system. Yes, I know flying with all 25 of your buddies is fun, but at some point it becomes very detrimental to a community where one faction that has "an advantage" has much more frequent occurrences of team stacks. we've all seen 2:1+ odds servers in other titles. I hope the developers will allow servers to correct this automatically if desired

Second: I want to address the elephant in the room: the Zero. It's got a few pretty big things going for it, chiefly firepower, speed, climb and maneuverability. Yes, the wildcat and P-40 have a few strengths to exploit, but in a combat sim environment the Zero's weaknesses likely will not translate overall into what eventually became evident in real life (crew survivability and airframe durability). Experienced zero jocks can just jump into another one after virtually auguring in and you'll never run out of digital zeros. How do the Devs plan on keeping things fair but not compromising historical accuracy?  

Thirdly, Alongside this, we now also see a situation (like other titles) where cannon armed aircraft are going up against array's of .50BMG. will the damage model be detailed enough to bring these two systems to more or less equality? I hope that it will. 

 

thanks

Pixel 

            

 

I prefer a more "realistic" impression in a simulation. Why go go through the in-depth level of research to create an accurate model if you going to ignore your own research because simmers cannot be bothered developing tactics to offset their own weakness. I mean that is just what the US did. One of the US main weakness was the lack of experience which led to poor execution. This improved during the war. Anyway, it seems like an incredible waste of resources to create faux planes because MP want equality. 

[Trooper117]

War is not fair and equality does not come into it... for me it's all about survival. I'm not into racking up kills like some kind of penis extension.

It's about teamwork, completing the mission and achieving the objective, plus getting back in one piece with as many of your flight as possible.

[BlitzPig_EL]

There can never be parity in a true simulation. And there shouldn't be.  In PF and '46 the BlitzPigs almost always flew for Japan because the servers were always stacked in favor of the blue navy planes.  It was a fun and exhilarating environment to fly in.

 

Bring it. 

[CPT Crunch]

And your making the assumption everyone hates being out numbered, not always true, many times we actually seek to be outnumbered flying as a smaller group.  It's us flying into a target rich environment, and large groups in game are at a distinct disadvantage when the fur fly's, the confusion and visuals with their limitations aren't working the best for most of them.  While they're busy smelling each others butts you slip in and rip a few to shreds from their worst graphically impaired angles.  We get our highest kill nights when outnumbered.

[PixelHunter]

On 8/6/2023 at 1:52 AM, PikeStance said:

 Anyway, it seems like an incredible waste of resources to create faux planes because MP want equality. 

I never said "faux" aircraft. Soft balance is different from "hard" balance. I am not suggesting making up aircraft or flight models. Soft balance means tailoring missions etc. for asymmetric balance, or simply making sure teams are at least equal in numbers.    

[PikeStance]

3 hours ago, PixelHunter said:

I never said "faux" aircraft. Soft balance is different from "hard" balance. I am not suggesting making up aircraft or flight models. Soft balance means tailoring missions etc. for asymmetric balance, or simply making sure teams are at least equal in numbers.    

 

It doesn't matter. The purpose is to create aircraft that are an accurate representation of real aircraft. create. If you want balance then War of Thunder is probably more to your liking. Anyway, as noted by me and others, if you going to nerf them, then why bother with exhaustive research? 

[PixelHunter]

On 8/10/2023 at 4:18 AM, PikeStance said:

 

It doesn't matter. The purpose is to create aircraft that are an accurate representation of real aircraft. create. If you want balance then War of Thunder is probably more to your liking. Anyway, as noted by me and others, if you going to nerf them, then why bother with exhaustive research? 

and once again, I'm not saying nerfing an aircraft based on flight models. are you reading what I'm saying?  

Edited August 24, 2023 by PixelHunter

[PikeStance]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:07 PM, PixelHunter said:

How do the Devs plan on keeping things fair but not compromising historical accuracy?  

 They don't.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, PikeStance said:

 They don't.

 

Nor should they... if you want 'realism' (chuckle) depicting air combat, then fairness doesn't come into it.

[CountZero]

You can say goodbye to any decent MP if they dont bather with making options for having balanced gameplay, just look how Tank Crew got destroyed with who nees balance just make tanks that were there, without making gameplay depict resons why one side gambled on new small number unreliable tanks when other side gambled on big numbers of good enought tanks. When you make game and have 80 ppl top you cant just make Ki-43-II vs Spitfire VIII and say now players make game popular, when historicly they were fighting over Burma in 1944, and expect ppl to buy it or even play it in MP.

With Midway F4F vs Zero is good match but later on it can get one sided realy fast if this game have any close limits like GB have in MP.

You dont need balace sides for players if you can pack one side with 100s of AI flights, but if you cant simulate historic scales of air battles then all this kids thinking just make airplane as real as posible without why that airplane had to be used, or risks of new tech, relaiability non existant, pilot confort or rotation of pilots vs never ending sorties untill rip...not simulated, its then just half simulation, and simple one at best.

 

MP game without balance will be dead on arivall and tank crew displayed this perfectly 

Edited August 27, 2023 by CountZero

[Trooper117]

MP again eh?... these flight sim games are not all about MP... as you well know, the vast majority of users playing these games are single players.

There are great missions and campaigns out there that I've played on other games that have been painstakingly researched with a eye to historical accuracy, and they were great to play, sometimes extremely difficult to survive in, but that was the challenge.

These games are also played by people other than those who want 'balance' just to increase their kill score... 

[JG27_Steini]

On 8/10/2023 at 6:41 AM, PixelHunter said:

I never said "faux" aircraft. Soft balance is different from "hard" balance. I am not suggesting making up aircraft or flight models. Soft balance means tailoring missions etc. for asymmetric balance, or simply making sure teams are at least equal in numbers.    

 

I think best would be to have an AI that knows what to do. You can clash 10 zero's vs 10 wildcats, the zeros will always win. The AI has to know when to avoid fighting and when to engage. Balancing things can be very hard. Imagine you fly for IJN and u will never have the adavantage the zero had. Or later you are forbidden to use heavy US bombers for balancing reasons, when the IJN had no chance to even reach the bomber, not talking about fighting in high altitudes. How to balance those missions types?

[Boba Fett]

MP balance can be achieved in any number of ways, all of which do not require aircraft FM/DM tinkering. Numbers, AC types, ratios, scenarios, and timeframe can all be manipulated by map makers. Personally, ratios and timeframe are the most important factors in "balancing" IMHO. These are available in pretty much all CFS's but most map makers choose not to do so - even exclusively DF maps. Flying a LaGG against a wave of 262's wears thin pretty quickly for both parties other than the pure "gamers" looking for monster scores.

You can make historically accurate maps without balance, which are fun for one set of pilots. You can make equally fun, more balanced, DF maps which are fun for the other set but (probably) take more forethought in how you make and test the maps.

Many DF maps in '46 had some or many of the aforementioned balance items and were also tons of fun. The last CFS we are all drifting away from, now, never saw this as a DF server path to be taken and it was a huge, easily solvable, mistake. Again LaGG's facing 262's, WTF?

There, realistically, should be no real conflict between the needs of DF and Historical servers. They have different aims and audiences but can both be excellent within the same game engine, FM/DM, and maps without compromising either. The potential GUI/Lobby should probably delineate between DF and Historical servers to prevent any confusion/conflict between play styles. I don't think either set of player styles is asking for AIRCRAFT balancing. We, as the audience, should move away from that as the definition of "balance" in general.

I have a whole argument regarding Ensign/Captain/Commander (Simple/Complex/FR) preset levels of play if anyone wants to start a flame war.......

[Boom]

8 hours ago, Boba Fett said:

Personally, ratios and timeframe are the most important factors in "balancing" IMHO. These are available in pretty much all CFS's but most map makers choose not to do so - even exclusively DF maps.

Totally agree Boba.

[spreckair]

Simulation vs. Game?  I hope that this effort strives to be a simulator, and simulators strive to reflect reality.  Fairness is no issue for me; if fighting against the A6M in an F4F was high risk, please let me feel what it was like.

[RossMarBow]

On 8/2/2023 at 1:07 PM, PixelHunter said:

 

 "auto balance" system

the Zero

.50BMG

 

 

            

 

Admins need a variety of tools available
I would like to see a fully configurable auto balance system, but also more options along the lines of team locking for the duration of the mission.
Maybe another admin wants to swap pilots teams when they die.
Maybe another admin wants every pilot to be on their own team.
Basically if someone can think of a way to doing something they should be able to whip up their own code to implement it.

 

Your concept of what this game should be is far too gamey, the majority of people are want a hardcore flight sim.
With all its unbalanced and bad game play if its historical.
Let admins and mission designers figure out how to make good game play.

 

Again your in the wrong place if you think cannons and 50cals are going to be magically balanced
Both weapon systems historically have their pros and cons - which makes them naturally "balanced" historically
i.e. differences in ROF ammo count etc. etc.
And balance is created by mission designers