Can we have big Bonus where most AI players are?

[rihardo456]

since its unfair to fight hard against stacked team with only AI on your side so Bonus would be appreciated and maybe it can balance out teams.

[gastanofrizzi]

it would take 50% additional experience for the top 3 of the losing team to balance things out

[Andris42]

I think a +25% would already make some less-determined minds to switch to that campaign, that side if it’s cleary advertised. But I might be wrong and the effect could be the opposite, people leaving the admittedly deserted side.
Nevertheless a simple battle task is enough to make me play a specific side in a specific campaign, just for the “quest”.

[ac250v]

But…I think most of the “capable” players already mix out the squads and campaign, exp bonus really attractive?

[atombaszo]

Maybe they could just increase the XP multiplier for battle hero awards. Like now it’s between 1.2 and 1.5 depening on how many awards you got, if they would increase it to 1.7 and 2.0, then it could motivate players to actually try, instead of quiting the matches. Surely it wouldn’t fix the problem that one nation is getting rolled constantly, but it would reward good players for trying.

[Andris42]

Does not matter for the capable players unless they wish to max those out soon. But for causal players still being somewhat better than bot squads, it may matter. I don’t know - for me it could matter.

[Knyaz_Iaroslav]

Bonus for under-population side

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 experi…

A hundred years ago I proposed it(1.5 month), and it seems that a large number of people agreed with me.

[HeyQuadro]

Just add a small XP bonus for queueing as either side. Could even add a full on “quickplay” that just puts you into any campaign on any side and you get even more bonus XP. It’d help balance out campaign player numbers as well

[Andris42]

I like the quickplay idea. …If only they’d add some extra intelligence to that e.g.

• do not put you on the same map twice or three times in a short time
• if you’ve played a very losing side multiple times then put you on a different side/campaign next (with better winning chances)
• let you filter whether you’re willing to join in already running games or not

[NQ_QB]

@65240125

Bonus would be appreciated and maybe it can balance out teams.

Bonus will not balance teams. Penalty will.

Winning side top players already have big bonus, so there is no reason for them to switch. But show message: “Your country invested to much to this war: economy collapsed, people dying of hunger. ‘Please, change side.’ - your mother wrote. // -80% experience, -50% battle pass task progress.” - this shit will force them. No need to penalize bottom half - no point to move them to losing side. Maybe 2-4 stages of penalty depending of player performance. (Just remember, this will be only applied to totally unbalanced teams. Players there not “working hard”, so no reason to give them a lot for their “job” .)