Due to the uneven number of players in both camps, there is often an imbalance between players on both sides, and this gap will even be very large.
Please arrange some games with AI on one side to solve the problem of too many players on one side. At least, one or two poor players should not be allowed to deal with eight or nine players. In most cases, they will also quit the game, making this game a player versus a robot. So why not do it in the first place?Add some PVE games for extra players to play. In fact, if they are tired of robots, they can also choose to quit. If there are players on both sides, the number of players on both sides should be equal.
I’d say if there’s more than a 2-person difference between sides, the game should have made two Player-vs-Bots games instead of one PvP match.
Or play a PVP game with the same number of players, while the extra players play a PVE game.
That might work, too, I guess
there were already similar discussions and most players on this forum agree that game needs to unify the playerbase cause having playerbase divided on 6+ campaigns (+ is for future campaigns) is unsustainable.
usually people are divided between 2 suggestions:
- divide game into 3 fronts: eastern, western and pacific (relatively easy implementation, but playerbase is still segmented)
- copy WT style and have global progression of factions
with unified playerbase you could actually make desperately needed MM changes cause you would have enough players for MM to actually work. before unification there is no need to talk about any MM changes cause it will just end in mostly PvE matches which people usually hate in “MMO”.
My suggested fix to this problem turned out to be deeply unpopular: rotating campaign availability.
We now have six, with three each playable for Soviets or Western Allies, and Five for Germany, One for Japan and half of one for Italy. Put the campaigns on a two-week rotation, start with Moscow/Normandy, a week later Normandy/Berlin, then Berlin/Tunisia, Tunisia/Stalingrad, Stalingrad/Pacific, Pacific/Moscow, start over. Do away with the paywalled levels in Stalingrad, and this might work to consolidate the playerbase and keep things fresh, and because of concentrated population to just two campaigns each week the Devs might get better data to work with when they make balance adjustments.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for one or two players to deal with players several times their own. At least adding PVE games can alleviate the problem of uneven number of players. Now, there are too many players on one side. If you hate PVE, you can quit. If you care about the experience bonus card, you can choose to stay. I don’t think it’s meaningful to let the other side have 1 or 2 more poor players as sandbags for a group of people. In the end, they will still choose to quit the battle and still make a game become PVE. In my opinion, it is best to either provide a balanced PVP or conduct PVE.
First, the merger will destroy the authenticity of the battlefield; second, there will be major problems in the balance of weapons and equipment. For example, I don’t think the light tanks in the early war can compete with the heavy tanks in the late war, which obviously seems infeasible. This will almost lead all players to be willing to use the troops in the late war and give up the troops in the early war.
usually games are more populated than you think (depending on campaign). just that consoles arent made for fps, so console players can perform worse than bots. also there are pc players who just suck. and then you have campers that are contributing zero for their team.
also people have called for DF to make bots visible so we can actually know with who we are playing with, but from beginning there is no response about that.
this is not a problem. with unification there needs to be a new MM. and i have proposed equipment/level based MM. so people with bolties and light tanks get to play their counterparts on early campaign maps(moscow, stalingrad), while people with smg and heavy tanks get to play late campaign maps (normandy/berlin etc.). what is important is that high level stuff is played against players with high level stuff, but if year matches they can be put into earlier campaign maps (so that smg and tanks arent locked to just late game campaigns).
During the waiting time of rebirth at the start of the game, you can check the number of players through the player list, because AI will join the battle only after the player is born on the map. The number of players who join later can also be mastered by the extra number of players in the player list. Although it’s not so intuitive, you can also roughly grasp the number of players like this.
The first picture shows that before the game joined AI, it can be seen here that there are no players in the enemy.The second picture shows that after joining AI, the number of both sides is equal, but in fact, the enemies are all robots.
When I used Axis, I became one of those unlucky people, and we had to face several times our own players.
i know about that, but that is not accurate way to see how many real players are in team. you can still join for a minute or two after match was created. there needs to be a way to recognize bots easily ingame and it needs to be implemented by DF.
It may not be too accurate, but basically it won’t be much different. If you don’t match enough teammates before the game starts, it won’t be much better after the game starts.
From what I’ve seen, the matchmaker seems quite happy to put a whole team full of experienced players against a team with hardly any. This creates completely one-sided matches where an attacking side never even captures the first strategic point. This is going to end up driving new players away if they happen as often as I’ve experienced.
That’s why I hope they can provide me with PVP games with a similar number of players. You know, even if I have the highest level and the best equipment, it’s hard for me to achieve 1V5 or more. Obviously, it is very unreasonable for a few players to fight against many players.The game of PVE is actually happening, as I said before, and I won’t mind. Therefore, I would like to appeal to developers to add PVE games and piece together players from camps with insufficient players, so that they can form a team with enough players to fight fairly.
there is no MM. it puts players that are available in queue and creates match from that. so if there are 10 marshals on queuing currently on one side, they will be put those 10 marshals on same team. if there is 1 player queuing in other team it will put that 1 player in other team. it creates match with players currently available. cause campaigns are skewed in one way (usually against axis, except normandy), full PVP is almost impossible without first unifying the playerbase.
problem with grinding axis is that people dont want to grind 5 times germans for almost same weapons with slightly different vehicles, so you get few campaigns where they have playerbase.
@翠星石 “MMO” PVE is going to be death of the game… do you even know how boring matches with bots are?
My suggestion about this campaign problem