Give an experience bonus to the side that has a certain number of percent fewer players.As, for example, in the ill-fated H&G, where for the insufficient number of one of the parties on GM, they give a bonus to earning experience and money.
I think the reason is clear, players should receive compensation for playing with bots, against players.In a good way, this should be done for each battle (for one team there are 5 players and 5 bots, and for the other 7 players and 3 bots, give bonus experience to the first team, for example).
I fully support this idea and I’ve suggested it before. There needs to be some population balancing in some way shape or form. I feel like if this is addressed a lot of complaints regarding “balance” would also disappear since one sided rofflestomps would go down.
Offering an xp bonus for having “choose any side” checked
You could of stopped with the first paragraph honestly. It would at least make people more willing to grind another faction while equaling the numbers and getting more bronze orders
I think a lot of people would be willing to stick out losing matches if they weren’t getting their XP cut to ribbons. As of right now it’s more efficient to desert the battle and rejoin.
The second paragraph is about the fact that there are games where half of the team leaves the game, and you stay against a team where all the players are in place.
Hng had that for years. They could offer 40000% bosts, I would pick GE for every war. For almost 10 years I did play that game.as Prety much everyone that played war. Ge was always the most picked faction.
yep, then what else is random matchmaking stupid a player or has his favorite faction, or is grinding one specifically, adding the boost to random matchmaking would result in mass desertions because you ended up in the wrong faction
And, I m stating that this won’t change or improve nothing.
On the long term, people would play more on the populated side, coz they want human players on their team for easy extra xp.
No bonus would cover a win xp. Or people would just loose on the underdog side to get even more xp than the win side… Got it?
If at any time I saw soviets had less players than Germans on a campaign, I would pick Germans to have a chance of getting in a team with more human players. No bonus would change that. At the long term will actually make the game even more unbalanced.
You got a nice bonus, sure. But won’t cover a easy win with more humans on a team…
I don’t know,I don’t care if there are a lot of Soviets in Berlin or not,that’s not why I played for them.
But if there were fewer players for the soviets, I would be glad that they would compensate me for this.
Easy victories here are no more pleasant than quick defeats.
I would preffer to give exp bonus for enabling “join any team” instead of giving it to the side with less population. It will have the same effect but forum won’t be floded by posts “why they always have exp bonus and we don’t?”
But easy or not victories. Give xp… Easy ones faster xp… The side with more human players have better chances to win and get said xp.
People rather go for the populated side to get better xp, than have a hard fight with a bot team just for the bonus. On the long term would make the game even more unbalanced.