Le post (pavé dans la marre) a été lancé par catherine1, programmeur chez Blizzard (ne pas tirer) à propos du déséquilibre chronique en jeu et tente de lancer des idées pour changer ça. Après comme d'hab ça part en suppositions, convictions, frappage de poitrine et autres trolls poilus pour enfin voir le DOC sortir de sa caverne et nous calmer un bon coup :
It is not equipment.
Yes there are disparities in equipment balance but in any simulation that is how it must be, because no equipment was exactly the same as another piece by design or in performance, some were SIMILAR and perhaps close in some manner; others were very different.
We always said this wasn't a red vs blue game and it never was and never will be. Since we have historically achieved an almost perfect 1:1 scoreline (actually last time I checked it was 0.99:1.01) bewteen one side and the other ... everything vs everything it can be seen that the disparities only appear in specific 1 compared to another definitions (the ubiguous apples vs oranges argument) ... when you look at all of the gear together it blends out well.
Sure we could (and want to) model more and different gear than we have so far, some of the choices (most of them in fact) were never made "with a clean slate do whatever you like" which unfortunately is how the critics imagine it to be and thus we fail worse than we did because of their erroneous assumptions. This suits their need to make others look like fools.
So while we aren't fools we gladly accept the cape of dumbass that we are given to wear by these sorts of people.
It is ENTIRELY population. We had vicious spawn delays at one time, to address the extreme overpopulation problems that we are seeing in these last few weeks, but we dialled them back under pressure from the playerbase. Until we had a better design to deal with these issues (SD is simplistic and inadequate) I really wish we had not dialled it back.
The worst (and it happens every day for a couple of hours) overpopulation these last weeks has run at 3:1 and 4:1 so nobody should allow themselves to beleive it isn't that bad.
It is that bad. A population balance of 2:1 has, for some time now ... been fairly frequent following the excellent start to this campaign where the movement of the map correlated to a pretty much 1:1 balance. When the Allies were overpopulated the map moved east (we saw this, you all saw this, and we tracked it in data so if you choose not to beleive it that's your problem) ... when it was 1:1 the map moved slowly and went both ways back and forth, when the Germans became overpopulated regularly, it went west.
Now it is going west much faster because they are massively overpopulated more frequently.
You can ignore this but it is the truth. Players LIKE to totally dominate the other side and "demoralize them" and we gave you this ability. We didn't count on in the beginning (but we do now) the players ability to not stop doing this even if the very game they love died as a result.
We are working on ways to curb this but it might be too late. You aren't telling us anything we don't already know, so don't think it's some kind of secret only you worked out and we did not. We had sound reasons for why things are what they are, and why they weren't what you think they should have been, you just don't know what those reasons are but you'll probably think that you do.
The balance issue is 99.9% over/under population based, whether you want to beleive it or not. The biggest issue with a war game is that whenever we allow players to unbalance the game through mechanisms of war (more than they are mechanisms of a traditional game) they both want, and will employ without consideration ... they naturally will do this.
This is hardly their fault. But it will kill the game when they succeed too well at it. If we step in and stop it, for the good of the game, the winners will almost cetainly not accept that, because now we're nerfing them and treating thier obvious greatness with unfair contempt.
So we really never find the balance, we just make the decisions. I wish we'd made a few more and in less time because if you have to lose any players, lose the ones that think winning all the time is a good idea for the game to rely on it's continued existance with.
If you could win 100% of the time, there would be no losing side and thus, no game shortly therafter. We are seeing this (as well as problems we have caused through inability to act as we might otherwise choose, due to our shrinking size crippling our ability to excercise our development desires) ... so between ourselves and the population issues (which are feeding the vicious cycle we are in like oxygen to a fire) ... things are in bad shape.
We are trying to do what we can but it is clearly not enough.
So you work it out if you like. Talk won't fix anything, so we don't talk about this a lot. We need more time so I spoke up because you need to stop pretending that it's whatever your pet issue is, and stop bickering amongst yourselves (while Rome burns) ... and accept some realities you might not want to accept.
Equipment and gear and all that are only affecting the balance problem much like a paint job on a house affects how it looks. The paint is not the foundation, walls, floor, ceiling or roof. You see the paint, sometiimes that is all you notice ... but the house is not the paint.
The house of the balance problem is population. Equipment is just the paint on the outside that people see, but you can have excellent paint on a bad house, and the paint won't make a lick of differance in the quality of the house.
The map changing vastly during the TZ3 overpop show ... when those who weren't there wonder "how?" it is simply what I alluded to in my earlier post.
The Germans are currently enjoying a base 2:1 and as much as 3 or 4:1 over population advantage at peak of that period. They grab huge amounts of land at those times because it would, under those circumstances (to anyone that is logical rather than emotional about it) be hard NOT to grab huge amounts of land no matter how well or how badly either side plays.
If the Allies could match the numbers the Germans are throwing up in the low pop timezone, it would be a very good fight. The Allies don't lack tenacity (quite the reverse actually) they simply lack the numbers.
It's just that simple. Will we survive long enough to change it fundamentally ?
To be fair Obear, without the funding those "other projects" brought us WWIIOL would have disappeared last year. You always conveniently forget that part. It's not always what they lead to (although success is always a goal) it's often what they buy you in the present time, not always what the future brings, although that would also be nice.
I don't think it's very objective (but is easily highly subjective) to say that one sides infantry is "straight up" better than the others. In fact, the logic side of me says that is a foolish and emotional way to be about a logical issue of fact.
Fact, objectively looked at, is that they are about equal really. Close enough to not make any differance you can rely on.
The factor that is making the differance, is population balance. Over the entire 10+ years of the game, the German side holds a lead in this area that while, periodically the Allies have matched or exceeded, over the entire lifespan of the game, the average lands squarely in the German camp.
And that's why they have a higher win total.
Nothing more, nothing less. You can subscribe to any belief system you want or need to believe in, but we know exactly how many are playing at any given moment in the game, and we don't rely on guesses, emotions, side bias, pride, ego or friendships to determine what or where we place our beliefs.
En clair les joueurs sont des sales cons et ils sont en train de détruire leur jeu à petit feu avec un comportement de gamin.