Over Numbers (I know, I know but think about it anyway)

[[8]72|Pvt.SnowMan]

I know that I've complained enough about it and never offered any solution other then to do away with it. I have an idea that might work and won't require anyone to be held captive on an island.

Scenario: Side one is at 30 players while side two has 20 (Side one now has 1/3 more players then side two). Either increase the number of people needed by side one to have in the zone by 1/3 along with the number of minutes required to capture it by 1/3 or reduce these numbers for side two by 1/3. In an effort to keep both sides honest, delay the changes for say 3 minutes. This would help stop one side from having a bunch of their members from disconnecting in an effort to stop an attack.

That's it in a nut shell.
Thoughts?


SnowMan

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

Vipermaul is a fan of this kind of thinking..

But here is the question, if one army is say five over the other that is a complete squad more than the opposition. Allowing them the possibility of attacking one extra objective.

So we could increase the to cap numbers for all flags by say one, in effect forcing them to spread this extra fireteam across the existing squads to balance.

My fear is with this is that player numbers are very fluid throughout the game often even over fifteen minute intervals.

An assault on a flag requires planning often it is not a quick operation, insert the team, approach the flag, and hold and wait.

Once an assault force for a flag has commence on an attack armies will have to block any more players from joining if it will increase their "to-cap" numbers beyond that squad size until the flag has been captured ( ie. potentially not a short period of time). ie longer than a stay on the island.

Also this does not affect defending armies who can field large armies as long as they are not having to capture flags.

The potential for heated discussions in the UN channels about who had how many players in which cap zone and for how long will occour more often, and more confused (ie. heated ) if numbers changed during the cap period.

In effect we could make the 'to cap' numbers dynamic but in my opinion the mathematics to make this workable would actually end up with a system more complicated, harder to test, and the end result would not actually be any better for the grass roots players.

Many players use the three or four minutes "island time" as a welcome beer/cigarette/head break during the three to four hours of play.

The age old rule is K.I.S.S. Dynamic cap-numbers are not simple IMHO.

But as ever thank you for giving the problem some constructive thought and positive consideration instead of just making negative comments.

BA

Keep It Simple Stupid.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Not sure that you would have to worry about changing the time/numbers on a team during capture if their numbers change. Just make the "dynamic" script run at the time of entry based on available players, everyone can see if players drop to try and skew the numbers, incoming players may not even be enough to warrant a change in mid capture.

Most complaints about a system come when there is an incomplete understanding of a function. If all knew that the "dynamic capture script" functioned based on numbers of both teams at first entry regardless of any fluctuations, then there really couldn't be any arguments that Side A should have had the zone sooner because of blah blah blah.

One could even make the decision, as mentioned, that the team may make it's JIP troops wait until the cap zone has been resolved for the good or bad.

I like the concept of this idea and agree that the numbers to cap should alter, but disagree that the time should change. The question is what is the formula for the script? For every 5, you must add 1? The only reason I say time should not change, is that it becomes disadvantageous to have maximum turnout. If Team A has to sit in a cap zone for 20 minutes (major), Team B could theoretically take 4 satellites, or 2 linking or 1 major and 1 satellites in that time.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

This kind of thinking was inspired by Super64, I do not know why he abandoned the charge. But I believe with enough thinking outside of the box we can over come any concerns Barmy or any good thinker may have about such an approach. But I feel we have to keep an open mind and attempt to address all these concerns because the payoff is a balanced game with no Fantasy Island at all. Its a worthy goal I believe.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

For example, one concern is knowing what the current numbers it takes to start the clock or whatever. The easy way to address that concern is flash a hint at the moment that the change occurs. Instead of saying "You must drop 1" have it say "Your numbers to capture increase by 1". Right now the unit commanders and the BFCOs have already memorized what it takes to capture an objections increasing or decreasing by 1 is not hard to adjust in their heads or with a notepad by the mouse. If the leaders knows the troops do not have to know. Plus we can add a menu that you can trigger the current hint.

[[A]1|Sgt.Gunther]

Don't know if this idea has been toyed with before, but BRAINWAVE!

How about you replace the current Island system with a Reinforcement Timer system. If you've ever played Day of Defeat, then you know what I am talking about.

The system: Every X seconds all the players that died in the previous X seconds are respawned. The effect is that HQ has just reinforced previous losses.

With the island script, and the black-screen-bug-fixer pretty much fully operational, all you need to do is move them to the island (like normal), and then they can wait a fixed number of seconds before they are all respawned.

With overnumbers, surely one sides reinforcement timer can be increased. The default would be 60 seconds. You can then add Y seconds to the time for each overnumber, or work it out by the ratio etc etc.

Thouhts?

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

My understanding is the Majority of people do not want to wait on the island at all. Reinforcement or not.

But if we use the Reinforcement idea then that means there will be more time periods where 15 players can out number the 5 players that are at a single objectives. And you know that 15 guns trained on 5 who will went that fight 9 times out of 10.

But then you say well if one team has 10-15 people more than the enemy then increase the waittime. If we do that then in ore to minimize the problem 15vs5 example above, then the team with the most players will probably complain about being on the island for too long. I rather invest in ideas of getting rid of the island all together personally.

These thoughts are all for Campaign Two by the way. Just so you guys know. Right now the MOD team is Focused on HALO fixes and GAME Time Sync right now.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

I am tired of all whining about the Over Numbers script, however constructive thinking on ways to replace the island or penalty points is super duper cool.

If we can come up with a fair sliding scale for number caps based on overage, I am all for it. Could we just put that cap update information into the same status window that shows game time, or a window just like it? That way any player not in a vehicle at any time could get the information, unless you can make it work in a vehicle :)

I do not want to make upset anyone, but I am not sure if a 1:1 ratio would be fair. If one Army manages to field more then another it should not be "penalized" for having more members show up, however I like things fair and do believe their should be some scale here.


Example:
Army A has 30 soldiers
Army B has 20 soldiers
Army A can cap up to 7.5 Satellites at a time (not realistic, but hear me out)
Army B can cap 5 Satellites at a time (still not realistic)

Question:
Should we adjust the Required Cap Numbers of Army A so they are able to Cap 5 Satellites just like Army B?
OR, should we Mitigate Army A's capping ability to something lower, like say 6 Satellites?


My Opinion:
Mitigation. No I am not a lawyer, I just like the word. I believe if one side can field a substantially larger Army then the other then the larger Army should still have a small advantage in Capping, they have good attendance and should get some reward for it.


I do remember the Days in Tour 1 when the US couldn't field as many Soldiers as the Russians. It would not have been fun using these rules, but I would rather have these rules then the other alternatives we currently have.

my 2 cents.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

There is much similarity in what is being offered as a solution, it is never a good thing (in my mind) to completely eliminate an advantage gained by a military that has high attendance.

The advantage is the numbers that are not capping. If all cap zones needed 1 extra soldier for every 5 man advantage (rounded up i.e. 8=2), then the negative aspect is only when taking a zone. If you have 5 extra soldiers on a field in a firefight, the advantage is to the higher numbers (when you take out factors of support and skill, just think of it as two "thin red lines" of AI slugging it out).

But in this tourney, just racking kills is not going to win, you have to take and hold ground. So the "balance" is that it is "harder" to take the area by requiring more men.

It can also kind of backfire if you can assault an objective with 10 men against a defence of 5, then the advantage again goes to the numbers (again barring the skill/equipment issue). But it also means that it is relatively easier to stop the cap process by needing to take our fewer enemy to drop them below cap ability.

The biggest factor is what I will call the 'water through the fingers' factor. Your hand cannot stop all of the water from a tap from getting by, there just aren't enough fingers. Obviously a team fielding 6 teams of 5 will be able to out manoeuvre a side with only 4 teams of 5 and can lead to the feel of a slowly sinking ship but this is where it is up to the army to get it's troops out on the field.

If it really looks like one team is never going to achieve enough numbers, then (sad to say) there will need to be a balance made in the numbers of those who attend. This will mean shifting teams, not a desirable end state.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

1st|1Lt.Nurmdog;67804']
I do not want to make upset anyone, but I am not sure if a 1:1 ratio would be fair. If one Army manages to field more then another it should not be "penalized" for having more members show up, however I like things fair and do believe their should be some scale here.


As this dynamic cap numbers idea was being matured in the tournament staff talks we already believe 1:1 ratio would NOT be the way to go. More like every 3 more than the enemy you would go up by 1. And we had a plan for the defenders as well. I used to play board games with complicated rules. Once you get the coding right and lag free with the proper in-game notifications you then it doesn't matter how complex it is.



If it really looks like one team is never going to achieve enough numbers, then (sad to say) there will need to be a balance made in the numbers of those who attend. This will mean shifting teams, not a desirable end state.

I like every comment you made in your post. I also want to comment on this statement I quoted above.

Let's say we achieve the right dynamic balancing effect and satisfy all the concerns of the majority of the players like adding the action menu item to show the current numbers need to cap or added number of seconds etc. Say we satisfy that. Now the rest of the balance is already being taken place as we speak. The new recruit process allows faster boot camp process and we will be able to retain more members for the tournament. And the council-approved manually-adjusted auto-free signup will can periodically be changed from the next 5 random sign up will go to the smaller roster before the team with the higher roster gets their next random signups. That has been working these past 3 weeks but has revealed that this new tournament needing to revamp its Boot Camp process.

So we believe those players attending will sort itself out with Bazooka_Boy's new tournament-wide Boot Camp process.

Now for Campaign two we still need to focus on successfully & fairly getting rid of the island I think.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

Now for Campaign two we still need to focus on successfully & fairly getting rid of the island I think.

I saw a nice nuke mod...

But seriously, the way the selection process is for those that don't donate is fine and works, since the player understands that they are not in a position to choose. The only uncontrollable aspects are the personnel who do everything needed to get in and then disappear and those that pay for their team.

If Team A has a total strength of 30 and Team B has a total strength of 25, the next 5 "randoms" should go to Team B. But what happens if those 5 do all of the steps, the Team B "boot" and then don't show? It is not the fault of Team B or Team A, it is a simple twist of fate that the "next 5" turned out to be just curious, or gained another interest, like girls or something. Add to this that 5 people join, donate and choose Team A and attend every battle, now Team A has 35 and Team B still has 25.

This is flaw of the "system" to place the "randoms" to the smaller team, which leads us to the island which we are trying to eliminate. We can fix the island, but I don't think we will ever fix the first bit.

[[2]18|PVT.Pirin]

Now for Campaign two we still need to focus on successfully & fairly getting rid of the island I think.

I say we nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. :)

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

If Team A has a total strength of 30 and Team B has a total strength of 25, the next 5 "randoms" should go to Team B. But what happens if those 5 do all of the steps, the Team B "boot" and then don't show? It is not the fault of Team B or Team A, it is a simple twist of fate that the "next 5" turned out to be just curious, or gained another interest, like girls or something. Add to this that 5 people join, donate and choose Team A and attend every battle, now Team A has 35 and Team B still has 25.

This is flaw of the "system" to place the "randoms" to the smaller team, which leads us to the island which we are trying to eliminate. We can fix the island, but I don't think we will ever fix the first bit.

That is life. This is why we the Council and the General's agreed now currently have the next 10 random sign ups go to Team B, speaking of the scenario (Team A has 30 and Team B has 25). For 2 weeks a while back we the Generals agreed to have the next 15 go to Team B, again speaking of the scenario described above (Team A has 30 and Team B has 25). Again this exposed the weak nature of our boot camp procedure and that is why you have seen it change. So you are right that we cannot just leave the automated free sign-system to a blind eye. We even have UN join the team with the smaller numbers to minimize and changes due to out-of-balance.

We are hitting this balance issue on ALL fronts. The only cool thing is that on days where we have balanced numbers the Overnumbers or dynamic balance system will not be a factor on thoses days. But again we currently do not have a handle on the best method to get rid of the island. And we are diligently keeping our ears and minds open.

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

Well since we are going to have the island can we make it so the people stuck there can do Karte or dance away there time??? Maybe get fit by doing some push ups or just look impatencly at thier watch??? Or they could paractice there aim abit and make sure they can get the kill shot next time in battle???

[[UN]Sedim]

Have targets floating off in the water? Empty boats would do it. Unless someone wants to creating floating rifle targets.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

im still wondering why i cant hear any good word about the island compared to old system (jump off the server). iv putted my whole squad to go there (far as i know Spz doesent go there) so we have as much as possible people going there and minimizing the time. Usually i havent had even change to smoke before i was back at base. so that aint really that bad time to spend there :)

[BazookaBoy]

We go to your island Dren, just so we can spy on you ;)

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Aah, ok can i have script for myself that i stay on island whole day (with RU Spz)?

[Steveak44]

just hit Alt-F4 to activate it.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Chances are I probably missed your point but for the record.

Alt+F4 does not allow you to bypass or get off the island.
Alt+F4 just gets you back to the island faster after JIP into the game if your team is overnumbers.


TB|Sgt.Overlord;67904']Well since we are going to have the island can we make it so the people stuck there can do Karte or dance away there time??? Maybe get fit by doing some push ups or just look impatencly at thier watch??? Or they could paractice there aim abit and make sure they can get the kill shot next time in battle???

And my goal with the island was to add the following

Portable Target Range (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1262)

http://kronzky.info/targetrange/switch.gif (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1262)

But there is not enough MOD team members as two of us are focused on the HALO and the Lag while the other is focused on Campaign Two. We need more MOD team members.

[Steveak44]

ROFL, VM! I was just being my charming smartass self.

[Moody]

Ninja Steve strikes again.


VM I have at least the ability to add that I'm sure, if it's just copy and paste script, add stuff, init, etc. Surely thatd take 30 minutes max, unless I'm missing something.

Couldn't they kick around AT's soccer ball too? I'm sorry, "football" i mean. I've never seen it actually used.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

30 minutes is a great project for someone who wants to add this item. But it is luxury compared to HALO script right now. And I still have a new MOD release to kick out to fix a potential lag problem. So 30 minutes will have to come from some other capable contributor.

[[RET]Sgt.Ginga]

so the island is annoying... But you need to ask yourself, am i too impatient to wait 3-4 mins on an island to prevent guys disconnecting for maybe half an hour or more? If the answer is yes then be prepared to be shot in the ass by some of your team mates lol.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

LOL -> Ginga!!
Too funny.
We may have to have an island for the island. Call it TK island. :)
I am really kidding!!

[Grimfist]

in my opinion -i realy dont mind the island. some times i go there 3 times a battle ans sometimes i never. i use it as some1 said before as a loo break or to give my fingers a rest. pesonaly i thing it should stay the way it is + it would be more work for the scripters and its not fair for us to keep throwing them requests.ty.and ty some morw.