There are tons of suggestions regarding balance change, for all kinds of different reasons:
weapons, game mechanics, team imbalances, etc.
Each player has had a different experience, and without the official information to go off of, we as forum users often end up arguing more about the experiences we’ve had than actually working on useful suggestions for solutions.
Can the devs set up some kind of page for us to look at overall statistics of various types so that we no longer have to base suggestions solely off of our personal experiences?
Personally, the official stats that I would like to see (All of which with the information of both PC enabled and PC disabled factors):
win rate of attackers in various campaigns and maps
win rate of defenders in various campaigns and maps
average number of fortification points earned
average number of rally points placed as offense/ defense in various campaigns and maps
average number of kills with each squad type in various campaigns and maps
most common and least common squad types in various campaigns and maps
The devs have said many times in the past they rely on the forum feedback to identify issues and come up with solutions. So help us help you.
Surely. In recent dev blogs, they even didn’t mention the exact balance adjustment, if devs made balance with a clear conscience, they should tell us in what mission and balanced what issues (total tickets, cap time or reinforcement).
Also I have to say that dev team is a poor student that don’t know how to use a balance. They always weaken one side and enhance other side at the same time, which only leads to a new imbalance. Just bonus one side or weaken one side, DON’T do both at one time. For example, in Tunisa, the Allies used to be too strong, so they increased tickets consumption and cap time, reduced total tickets and did the opposite for Axis. So no one played allies and all crowded to axis. This is the worst balance plan I’ve ever seen.
I hope they really understand that, if they hadn’t realized before.
Something we as a community could do is each posting our own opinion and “Tier list” about weapon performance with each a small description on “why we think this way”
Like saying " weapon xyz - Tier B - fast time to kill, good accuracy, decent dispersion, but horrible sights.
Would be interesting where the community agrees on or where they disagree on.
You are assuming that the developers have the same wants and needs as the players.
Imbalance is intentional to trick you into buying more premium squads & gold order weapons. When enough have been sold for one side, the imbalance is shifted to the other side to sell premium squads & gold order weapons for the other side. This is why the game will never be balanced: The financial desires of the developers are in direct conflict with the players’ desires for a better game. This is (one) problem with most free to play games.
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, many people believe that in order for them to win… someone else must lose. They have no idea how to create a “WIN-WIN” situation for everybody involved—nor do they care to learn how. There are many ways to monetize a product or service. Unfortunately, today’s companies, are too short-term minded—and only care about their own wants & needs. They fail to realize, however, that by meeting their customers wants and needs… will actually meet their own (as well) over the long term—thereby creating more profits for a longer period of time.
I would dare to actually disagree with this statement, while there have been some questionable balance decisions from the devs in the past, I would argue that most “top tier” weapons are all free to unlock, with the exception of maybe the 100 round Thompson or the burst g43 being special unlocks.
One might argue that vehicles have balance problems, tho vehicle balance is problematic anyways.
Such stats could be influenced by a trend, and such a trend is based on human behavior, so you may think attackers have an advantage on a particular map or campaign due to map layout, but it might just be because of the players, and not necessarily anything to do with the map or campagin, and this applies to the rest of such stats. Trends are based on humans flocking. So let’s say you change a map or campaign based on stats you might be doing it for the wrong reason, a trend might be purely based on a current trend that could just easily be in the opposite direction and the real reason for the trend is people being attracted to the winning teams, regardless of campaign or map
Until the game stops rewards players for friendly damage with barb wire fortifications this stat is useless, and even if they do fix that, it’s still largely a useless statistic, as again the real indicator and decider is players doing this and where they prefer to apply it, not generally looking at maps, you would have to look at it from players perspective as a priority and their reasoning, which would require honest answers as to their purposes…also important to note some players abandon matches because of friendlies placing annoying fortifications in bad places, so again, it comes down to many different factors that a simple statistic does not cover and if a decision is made based on that alone it will merely shift the problem else where
Would be interesting to know, but again, the real indicator is to look at players as the core of this stat, because if you look at just maps/campaigns, you aren’t getting a very good indicator, some players just don’t bother with rallies, and other do, so it’s really about the players not the maps or campaigns regarding rally building
Again this will depend on the users and how competent they are. Some Squads will be better performing in the hands of one user compared to another, it does not necessarily reflect on the squad itself, also it depends on the weapons being used, if someone is using the same squad with different weapons, that can change things, so squad alone is no indicator of anything
Considering that players create their squad lineups before going into the match and not being aware what match they will be put in re map, this is again not a very good reliable stat for anything, other than identifying perhaps the squad meta, which we already know what that is anyway, so not like this is a mystery, it is the meta because it is the most successful across all maps, so again, it’s not about the maps or campaigns in this stat, it’s about the player and what he believes is the meta or works best for him, or indeed what he has available or is their fav most fun way to play the game, as not all players play for the meta
That’s literally why I’m asking for these statistics. The trend that I am most noticing in my games is that most defense games I’m seeing tons of people dropping out, plus defense loses far more often than offense.
However, on offense, rarely do people quit out unless its a certain map or mode. In addition, majority of offense games are fairly easy wins.
The whole point of balancing is seeing the trends that people are doing (or not doing) within those maps. Balancing cannot only be done in a perfect “what if” scenario. As most games are very far from those same setups. Adjusting to the trends and actively balancing is needed.
Stop for a moment and track the reason for the trends in this way. Take it back a step further beyond “being attracted to the winning teams”.
Why are those teams winning so much?
Imbalance in weaponry?
Imbalance in Map advantage?
Imbalance of game mechanics for offense vs defense?
A specific interaction of the AI on certain maps?
These are all things that can be examined with the statistics I am asking for.
I can tell you as someone that mains engineers, this is false. I’ve tested it, and it is not a thing. Not sure where you got your info.
Its actually a very useful piece of information. As I said earlier, the balancing (especially in regards to game mechanics for defense) need to take into account trends, not just perfect “what if” scenarios.
In a very large number of my games, almost nobody uses defensive fortifications (except me), yet one of the main reasons they aren’t buffing defensive mechanics is because “if there are too many engineers, objectives will become a fortress”.
My point is that I don’t see hardly anyone using engineers as it is. The information for engineer points is an excellent indication of how many players actually attempt to set up these fortifications. Giving a better baseline for those suggestions.
Some maps have really bad layouts in terms of rally points. Whether there are very few good spots, or there is trouble for AI to get out of certain locations. This information I think would be surprisingly insightful.
I will have to 100% disagree with you on this one. Avg Kills with certain squad types is paramount to understanding balancing of these classes according to the maps and in comparison with each other.
For example: seeing the average number of kills with flametrooper squads being significantly higher than any other squad. Even when accounting for deaths where they were unable to get a kill in, the K/D on these squads is significantly higher than most other squads. Now by just how much, and if it should be deemed an issue, is why I’m asking for those statistics.
It shows the meta squads, and how you can work to rebalance the squads to break the metas.
In addition, it would likely show that those using said meta squads are more likely to quit out of certain maps, making other squads significantly more prevalent than normal in comparison to other maps.
This helps to identify map layout and design elements that can help to balance other maps to break up the meta.
I gave you all the answers, you don’t need any extra statistics
The reason is because of team stacking and other team quitting, it’s just that simple
has nothing to do with squads, weapons, or maps, or offensive/defensive or ai, it is all about the people and how they play as gang and runaway from stronger gangs looking for easy fights
you seem to be focusing on the least important aspect of what causes imbalances in this game as if looking for a scapegoat or excuse
for example I can tell you without looking at any stats, that certain players and groups attract more players on their team and make more players quit on the other team and they alone carry a massive amount of influence on the games statistics, regardless of what or where they play, so you are not understanding this most crucial aspect which makes the rest of the statistic analyzing redundant, across the board
so whilst you are focusing on that, the reality eludes you
As for the meta and wanting to change that, it’s just dumb, there is a clear tier system in this game, which is obviously why the BR is being introduced
Asking to nerf a flametrooper for doing what he is in the game to do doesn’t make any sense. What you can do is make it so they are not so common in the battles, that would make more sense to me. But again, don’t need any statistics to tell you that certain things need to be dialed back in terms of how many can be on the battlefield at once, and the other thing that would help would be to increase the objectives size, again no stats needed to know that would help
If you are looking for a crappy game that balanced itself into oblivion I can suggest planetside2
I’m glad you have your opinions, even if they only are focused on surface issues.
I intend to keep asking the devs for this information, as I do have some experience in game development, and know that I am correct in what I am looking for. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other threads for you to hop on. No need to attempt to deflect me from this one.
That’s the thing though, this isn’t an opinion, this is a fact
furthermore, it’s not just a fact, but it is the core of the issue
you are the one focused on surface issues like looking at the wrong thing for a solution to a different problem
but do go ahead and keep asking, doesn’t hurt to do that.
And adjusting things like maps can still have it’s value if particular spots become known to become too problematic, but again, for you to identify that, you have to look at games and have experience in matches and know of those particular issues. Looking at the overall stats to support your other agendas whilst ignoring the base problem won’t solve that. It would take a different approach
But I understand you want to see that to try and use it to support your argument even if it would be unfounded
considering that they kept secret almost everything regarding data in this game you wont be getting those data.
we dont know if we have max stat soldier ingame, gun values (cause of hidden modifiers), whether we play with bots or not etc.
every information we have we got from third party.
also trends are relatively short term, so you see some factions played more than others and that is what is contributing to the win percentage. getting attackers or defenders really doesnt matter much as getting a good team.
and i doubt that forum feedback will work. they have their work schedule full for a year and they dont have such a big team to implement forum ideas. ffs they dont even have enough devs to fix bugs.