Jump to content

Tactical Air War


=LG=Kathon
 Share

Recommended Posts

SvAF/F16_radek

Completely unnecessary these team balance discussions. Our whole life accompanies us an unbalance. Only a peer to peer as with the hyperlobby can be in balance, never a 24h server.

Most of those discussing are aware of this, and so the suggestions are ways to avoid silly unbalance as in more than 2:1 and the bigger team filling up the server.

 

Edited by a_radek
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monostripezebra

Why will the German side always lose the attrition game every time? Both sides have the same maximum aircraft/pilot losses to end a map instantly.

 

Think about the following math: If reaching a loss-number (pilots/aircrafts) ends the game, the side reaching it first loses. Each sides total losses can be seen as composed by average lossrate (planes or pilots per hour) times pilots.    Let´s assume the average loss-rate for any BoS player, regardless of side and plane type would be 1 plane shredded every 2hrs. To reach a 400 plane limit, he/she/it would then average 800hrs. A team of 10 would average 80hrs and a team of 20 averages 40hrs to get to that numbers. The larger the team, the faster the number of absolute losses is reached.

 

Unless the side with the player mayority also reaches a inverse proportionally better loss rate, it will not even break even. In a hypothetical matchup of a team of 20 vs 40, the team of 40 needs half the loss rate to be competative: 1plane lost per 4hrs vs 1 plane lost per 2hrs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monostripezebra

Completely unnecessary these team balance discussions. Our whole life accompanies us an unbalance. Only a peer to peer as with the hyperlobby can be in balance, never a 24h server.

 

Our whole life =/= a game. Or do you play chess always with 2 dames? ;=)

a little bit of proportion can make things open in the outcome. If you care for the outcome. Most games are somewhat about the outcome and hence have a balancing mechanism.  Rising Storm2: Vietnam for instance draws on unequal team abilities but has balances like tunnels vs helos and a joining mechanism that prohibits teamstacking. If one team has 5 players lead, you can only join the other team.. the fact that so many blue players are so absolutely against any form of balancing is funny, because in the end it just means they don´t care for the open outcome PvP game aspect. Why not play coop instead, anyone can be the hero racking up countless victories against the AI and feel good!

Edited by Monostripezebra
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

curiousGamblerr

It came back!

 

Seems to have died and then immediately come back to life, ignoring sorties from the mission during which it died.

 

I thought I got a disco, right after my 110 gunner fought off a fighter, so I was damaged recently, so sad... but no, woo  :wacko: my massive 2 kill streak lives on!

 

Edit: Except the flak was back and I didn't realize and now I'm good and dead  :(

Edited by 19//curiousGamblerr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

curiousGamblerr

Due to bug in log files script crashes. Some sorties from mission #334 hasn't been counted at all. Server restarted.

 

I wish it lost the one where I died  :lol:  ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
Why not play coop instead, anyone can be the hero racking up countless victories against the AI and feel good!

I see TAW as a Co-op Server anyways. At least that's the Way I use it. I fly with the biggest Group of Guys on the TS and we generally Own the Map.

 

It's a great PvE+P Server. But not much more. The Pilot Losses do of course mean almost Automatic Win for Russians every time unless Germans can win very quickly, by stacking to the max.  

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn, I gad fliwn a redemption flight doing supply run and to no avail. Bad enough my second redemption flight the map timed out when I was on landing approach.

 

C"est la vie

 

Looks like my life online will be supply runs. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=69.GIAP=Shvak

I read a lot about balance issues with one team having an overwhelming advantage over the other. It does not matter if it is axis or vvs once the difference stretches to over 10 planes on either side a problem exists.

It however is a problem that cannot be fixed by limiting players. What can be done is to base the results for the ground war on the number of planes logged in and in a plane when your take-off.

If you are axis and there are 10 more pilots on your team than on the vvs team then no ground kills count. You can still kill the enemy ground unit but it will not count.

As this is measured when you take-off a pilot will have to wait for the numbers to even out to take part in the ground war.

Once you are in the air the entire enemy team can disconnect, your results will count as long as you met the required numbers on take-off. The same will apply to the enemy who has 10 less planes. 

Air combat will always count no-matter the number of planes on either side. This was a solution ADW used if I recall. All that is needed is to make it impossible to win by air-combat alone. Increase the number of planes needed to kill on each side.

If I recall until their was 5 planes on each team no ground kills counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

curiousGamblerr

To everyone suggesting stuff just doesn't count for the team with more players etc... you might remember "quorum" a few campaigns ago, which was an attempt to encourage balance and basically killed the server. As soon as stuff stops counting for people, they stop playing. And then we have no TAW at all.

 

A solution like Pand's might work, but straight up deciding stuff doesn't count for the team with more players is never going to work.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kathon,

 

I was in a mission yesterday, Mission #338. A German tank column was attacking Kalach, and had deployed their artillery to support the attack. I decided to attack the nearby Russian defenses. Flew over our tank column when I got in trouble with a Russian fighter and got shot down (no surprise :P). But when I looked at the track (with icons) I saw that the German column was a mixture of blue AND red. I'm not sure if this is a game bug or possibly a server bug? All the vehicles and armor was German, but some Panzers showed up as red. All throughout the mission we would get messages 'tank column at xyz coordinate under attack'. Even though there were only a handful of Russian players on, and none of them had any ground kills. The message would keep popping up every ~15 minutes or so. If you want I can send you the track or screenshots, let me know! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe make it count in the players stats but not for the campaign per se. For example, a player would still get credited with destroying a tank but the campaign will remain static regardless of how many tanks he destroyed ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

curiousGamblerr

I think that is how it worked Riksen, still, once people were like "well attacking these tanks wont even move the front" they stopped caring and stopped playing. If anybody remembers it working differently please correct me, once that campaign sorta died I also stopped playing along with most other folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am wrong but did you remove the rainy weather we had sometimes on taw? I loved to fly through rain on taw.  :biggrin:

The best thing was rain + fog on a full server fighting for one objective few taw campaigns ago.  ;)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am wrong but did you remove the rainy weather we had sometimes on taw? I loved to fly through rain on taw.  :biggrin:

The best thing was rain + fog on a full server fighting for one objective few taw campaigns ago.  ;)

The last few nights I've flown have been with rain. So it's still there. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is how it worked Riksen, still, once people were like "well attacking these tanks wont even move the front" they stopped caring and stopped playing. If anybody remembers it working differently please correct me, once that campaign sorta died I also stopped playing along with most other folks.

Oh I see. Out of ideas then lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One picture from today bombing mission against Peshkatovka AF. There is the last SC50 out of my 28 in the center of picture. You guys were so lucky that today I set the 0.1 instead of usual 0.25 sec ripple delay :)

 

EDIT: seems I can't attached picture :( Thus this is related to IRRE_Nyechou, IRRE_Alleluia_red, LAL_yvanleterible and one other guy whos were sitting on the start of the runway while my bombs were exploding close to them.

Edited by I./JG1_Pragr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for all of those saying player number imbalance isn't important. How did you come to this conclusion? I can't get there, no matter how I twist the fact and look at things, the number of players per team is always a factor. I am honestly at a loss here. If one team has 5 players and the other team has 20 you are telling me that this won't effect the play of the server? This number distribution is irrelevant? Have you ever been on the side with 5 players against the 20? If you have I can't fathom how you can say that this doesn't matter. If you haven't played under such conditions, I'd suggest you try it out some time; maybe give yourself some perspective to work from.

 

I also don't understand why the quorum system is looked on as a bad thing. It made sense to me when it was in place. Why should either team be able to run away with a map simply because no one, or very few players, from the other side are available to play? That would be like letting a football game, either kind, start before the other team showed up. At best it is a hollow victory.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMI @ HenHawk............................   :lol:

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

aka Comrade Badinov...................

Edited by 1./JG54_Hoss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMI @ HenHawk............................ :lol:

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

aka Comrade Badinov...................

But I barely gave any details yet! I didn't get to mention how the server went down on every body!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk

I have a question for all of those saying player number imbalance isn't important. How did you come to this conclusion? I can't get there, no matter how I twist the fact and look at things, the number of players per team is always a factor. I am honestly at a loss here. If one team has 5 players and the other team has 20 you are telling me that this won't effect the play of the server? This number distribution is irrelevant? Have you ever been on the side with 5 players against the 20? If you have I can't fathom how you can say that this doesn't matter. If you haven't played under such conditions, I'd suggest you try it out some time; maybe give yourself some perspective to work from.

 

I also don't understand why the quorum system is looked on as a bad thing. It made sense to me when it was in place. Why should either team be able to run away with a map simply because no one, or very few players, from the other side are available to play? That would be like letting a football game, either kind, start before the other team showed up. At best it is a hollow victory.

Quorum did not work out - ppl dislike when they loose any how earned points , also it happened to often I think. So it worked to well at the end server were not so much popular.

All we know that numbers matters (discarded some rare conditions), especially when one side is full of squadrons and other mostly consistent of random guys which are not coordinated at all. Personally I would like to have some solution to be found and adopted by creators. For now at least join TAW TS or chat what you are doing to make things better, this mostly random play can be helped by local superiorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for all of those saying player number imbalance isn't important. How did you come to this conclusion? I can't get there, no matter how I twist the fact and look at things, the number of players per team is always a factor. I am honestly at a loss here. If one team has 5 players and the other team has 20 you are telling me that this won't effect the play of the server? This number distribution is irrelevant? Have you ever been on the side with 5 players against the 20? If you have I can't fathom how you can say that this doesn't matter. If you haven't played under such conditions, I'd suggest you try it out some time; maybe give yourself some perspective to work from.

 

I also don't understand why the quorum system is looked on as a bad thing. It made sense to me when it was in place. Why should either team be able to run away with a map simply because no one, or very few players, from the other side are available to play? That would be like letting a football game, either kind, start before the other team showed up. At best it is a hollow victory.

+1

 

Number imbalance is important and is a huge factor, because the side with the much greater numbers:

 

1) Can choose to fly in large groups which would overpower the enemy wherever they chose to go; since each pilot has limited aircraft, it can accelerate further reduction of pilots/aircraft on the outnumbered side

 

2) Has the luxury of extra pilots which can CAP multiple friendly targets making it much more difficult/impossible for the enemy to make hit and run attacks undetected; conversely, they can hit some targets undetected as the outnumbered side probably doesn't have enough pilots to cover any/many targets

 

Neither of these points would likely be an issue with relatively balanced teams.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kathon,

 

I was in a mission yesterday, Mission #338. A German tank column was attacking Kalach, and had deployed their artillery to support the attack. I decided to attack the nearby Russian defenses. Flew over our tank column when I got in trouble with a Russian fighter and got shot down (no surprise :P). But when I looked at the track (with icons) I saw that the German column was a mixture of blue AND red. I'm not sure if this is a game bug or possibly a server bug? All the vehicles and armor was German, but some Panzers showed up as red. All throughout the mission we would get messages 'tank column at xyz coordinate under attack'. Even though there were only a handful of Russian players on, and none of them had any ground kills. The message would keep popping up every ~15 minutes or so. If you want I can send you the track or screenshots, let me know! :)

It's a game bug. I reported it to the developers long time ago but apparently they did't have time to fix it. 

 

Maybe I am wrong but did you remove the rainy weather we had sometimes on taw? I loved to fly through rain on taw.  :biggrin:

The best thing was rain + fog on a full server fighting for one objective few taw campaigns ago.  ;)

The rain and snow has low probability so it doesn't appear very often.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=SqSq=switch201

Although I agree that the team imbalance is the number 1 biggest issue with this server right now, I do not think this quorum system is the most ideal solution, for the reasons that others have stated above. It just seems very gamey to me and also seems like a fairly complicated solution to a rather simple problem. I already made my suggestion on how to fix this, and no one seemed to come back with a good counter argument for why it wouldn't work, so I will post it again:

 

When player numbers on the server are greater than or equal to 10, limit opposing team numbers in this fashion:

 

Given Team Red and Team Blue player counts (Red, Blue) ->  Blue(0.5) <= Red <= Blue(1.5) which also translates to Red(.05) <= Blue <= Red(1.5)

 

For example -> if Red has 14 Players the max number of Blues are 28 and the min number of Blues are 7 

 

This implementation should only limit one's ability to spawn. Meaning it should not end players flight in the event the ratio becomes unbalanced, but spawning should be restricted until the desired ratio is achieved once again.

 

I am interested in hearing counter arguments as to why this implementation would not be ideal, but let me start with a premature rebuttal, to what I think some of the weak points of this implementation are: 

 

1) It's annoying to have to go to the Il2 website and switch my username so that I can join the other team.

​    Answer: it may be slightly inconvenient, but this operation can be completed in about 2 mins. which compared to the start up times of some planes (Ju52) is pretty insignificant 

 

2) If the team I want to play for is already at max, then I just won't play on this server.

    Answer: If that's your prerogative than good for you. You can do whatever you like, but think about the people on the outnumbered team and how they feel. I would also argue that it is better to have evener teams with low player count than it is to have uneven teams with a high player count. 

 

If you guys think there are other problems with this implementation, then I would love to hear what you have to say  :)

Edited by =SqSq=switch201
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree that the team imbalance is the number 1 biggest issue with this server right now, I do not think this quorum system is the most ideal solution, for the reasons that others have stated above. It just seems very gamey to me and also seems like a fairly complicated solution to a rather simple problem. I already made my suggestion on how to fix this, and no one seemed to come back with a good counter argument for why it wouldn't work, so I will post it again:

 

When player numbers on the server are greater than or equal to 10, limit opposing team numbers in this fashion:

 

Given Team Red and Team Blue player counts (Red, Blue) -> Blue(0.5) <= Red <= Blue(1.5) which also translates to Red(.05) <= Blue <= Red(1.5)

 

For example -> if Red has 14 Players the max number of Blues are 28 and the min number of Blues are 7

 

This implementation should only limit one's ability to spawn. Meaning it should not end players flight in the event the ratio becomes unbalanced, but spawning should be restricted until the desired ratio is achieved once again.

 

I am interested in hearing counter arguments as to why this implementation would not be ideal, but let me start with a premature rebuttal, to what I think some of the weak points of this implementation are:

 

1) It's annoying to have to go to the Il2 website and switch my username so that I can join the other team.

​ Answer: it may be slightly inconvenient, but this operation can be completed in about 2 mins. which compared to the start up times of some planes (Ju52) is pretty insignificant

 

2) If the team I want to play for is already at max, then I just won't play on this server.

Answer: If that's your prerogative than good for you. You can do whatever you like, but think about the people on the outnumbered team and how they feel. I would also argue that it is better to have evener teams with low player count than it is to have uneven teams with a high player count.

 

If you guys think there are other problems with this implementation, then I would love to hear what you have to say :)

They plan to ban number 1 in the next TAW so players like me and Manu who attempt to balance the numbers wont be able to switch but even if they didnt, I think the number of people with 2 accounts is very small. The vast majority flies for one side only.

The best way to account what the numbers are going to look like for the next campaign is to check what side the major squadrons (like LG, SACG, 5IAP, 5JG, etc ...) are going to fly for.

There is just a lot of people who wont fly russian planes for some reason. People just dont care and I dont think there will ever be a solution to this problem. Just think about it, if people cared about that, most of them would have 2 accounts already ...

Edited by 4./JG52_Riksen
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=SqSq=switch201

I think the number of people with 2 accounts is very small.

 

Just for clarification, you don't need to buy anything to have a second account. all you need to do is change your name on the Il2 website. so technically everyone already has a second account, they just need to change their name.

 

So is there a reason they want to take away the ability to switch teams? seems rather silly to me.

 

There is just a lot of people who wont fly russian planes for some reason.

 

Like I said that's their prerogative, and although we can not force tem to switch teams, we can limit their ability to join the Blue team in the event blues is already heavily stacked. if they are not willing to fly anything other than german planes, then they simply don't get to play. Like I said before, I think it's better to have a smaller player count, with even teams than it is to have a large player count with unbalanced teams. 

also on this point:

 

if people cared about that, most of them would have 2 accounts already

 

Yes it is obvious people don't care, but that is simply human nature. and it is really unfair to the people who want to play a balanced game. especially to those who are on the smaller team.

 

For example, some people don't care if they litter. Most people agree that their environment is better when people don't litter, and for this reason there are laws against littering. it's the same with TAW. no matter what they do to solve the imbalance problem they are going to make some people mad, but in the end (if done correctly) it will make the server environment better for the majority of players.

Edited by =SqSq=switch201
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarification, you don't need to buy anything to have a second account. all you need to do is change your name on the Il2 website. so technically everyone already has a second account, they just need to change their name.

 

I know that and I've been flying TAW for both sides but that is the minority of the players. Most people only fly for one side and prefer to stack the server than to fly for the other team. To be honest, however, I do get their point. TAW stimulates a player to fly one account in order to acquire better planes making it hard for a player to have good planes in both accounts when time for flying is limited. Maybe a mechanism that gives players better planes for their secondary account could stimulate more players to have 2 accounts?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any thought by the administrators to add a limited number of AI aircraft to the campaign?

 

As part of the effort to lessen the effect of stacking on one side, IMO having a small number of AI fighters spawning on the outnumbered side over cities/airfields/defensive positions being attacked might help the situation. Maybe check the number of players after 20 minutes and if one side outnumbers the other by more than 10-15 players, the AI aircraft spawn (maybe only when an enemy aircraft flies within a trigger zone, then they stay up until shot down or they land).

 

If for no other reason than it would allow the outnumbered human pilots to do other things like protect tanks or attack tanks, artillery, defensive positions or airfields - since some opposing fighters would have to keep busy attacking the defending AI fighters.

 

I know AI aircraft can affect CPU load, but a limited number (maybe a pair over each area being attacked, which is a max of two locations = four fighters) might not impact things too much. Then as they get shot down another pair can spawn to take their place, but no more than four would be in the air at one time.

Edited by AKA_Relent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

I know that and I've been flying TAW for both sides but that is the minority of the players. Most people only fly for one side and prefer to stack the server than to fly for the other team. To be honest, however, I do get their point. TAW stimulates a player to fly one account in order to acquire better planes making it hard for a player to have good planes in both accounts when time for flying is limited. Maybe a mechanism that gives players better planes for their secondary account could stimulate more players to have 2 accounts?

Riksen, DED have come up with a neat system about stacking. Basically, the points are multiplied by the friendly:enemy ratio to both punish stacking and reward the minority team. If this could somehow reflect either on a pilot's aircraft inventory and/or the progress of the ground war in TAW I think things would change a lot.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=IL2AU=chappyj

Riksen, DED have come up with a neat system about stacking. Basically, the points are multiplied by the friendly:enemy ratio to both punish stacking and reward the minority team. If this could somehow reflect either on a pilot's aircraft inventory and/or the progress of the ground war in TAW I think things would change a lot.

thats pretty clever. 

 

incentivisation is definitely the best approach rather than punishment wherever possible.

There are other elements that could be tweaked to favour the number balance at any given time.  

eg Less CMs say 2 when its 2:1 and 1 CM when its 3:1 and greater for new aircraft. this allows for the underpop side to not enter a downward spiral of penalty that kicks in simply because they are outnumbered and therefore more likely to lose planes already.

Perhaps even unlimited +1 aircraft to compensate for the high attrition rate when ur outnumbered and perhaps unlimited ground attack of one varient too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some kind of actual balance like this is needed for the next campaign, because right now the situation is quite hopeless. To be frank I don't even understand why I as a VVS-player should bother playing as it stands right now (situation could of course be reversed, but this campaign VVS is at a serious disadvantage so I'll go with that): Even if I'd play for 16 hours a day I can't make a difference. I have a completely idiotic 209 hours flown this campaign. I have 620 takeoffs. What do I have to show for that diligence? Nothing. Nothing at all. The wins of map 2, 3, 4 and 5 can mostly be contributed to the disconnect=playerdeath bug, and to most of the LW playing like absolute morons, flopping around in low Earth orbit and not bombing anything at all that needed bombing, or solo-attacking airfields only to get murdered by AA. Towards the end of the campaign (map 5 and onwards) a lot more LW-players started actually becoming more opportunistic and actually taking advantage of the constant numerical superiority they have.

 

Once VVS finally has some kind of numerical advantage the only thing that can be done is to try to consolidate what we already have. Gaining ground is almost out of the question, unless the stars align so that we have tank columns on the offensive that specific round and no major attacks to defend against, but that's it. Then for 2/3rds of a day VVS is outnumbered, and especially during EU night (NA to east-Asia evenings) the LW generally has such a numerical advantage that they sky is theirs to do as they please with. The only chance for VVS to NOT get stomped during that time is if LW all just fly in circles and jerk each other off instead of doing something meaningful.

 

Those times LW do take the opportunity to do something meaningful they completely obliterate airfields, ascertain complete air superiority over any ground targets the VVS need to kill, etc. Even if some brave and skilled VVS-pilots take into the air in fighters (they only thing they can do at that point since usually it's suicide even to try to run a transport) there is absolutely no amount of damage (plane and player kills) that is even remotely comparable to the damage the LW can do in the ground in the same time. They'd need something like 20-30 kills to balance it out, and good luck getting that when playing 4v16 where there are four randoms vs 8 randoms and 8 coordinated clan-pilots.

 

I see some nice suggestions by various players here for how one could balance it all, but what worries me the most is that I've seen absolutely zero ideas from the =LG= devs/admins which actually would do anything about the major issues in the campaign.

 

 

For example capping each side to 40 players is good for prime time, but it won't solve the other 20 hours of the day. It's a small victory (and needed), but not an ultimate solution. I haven't seen any kind of numbers anywhere at all that would indicate that the possibility to play on both teams is an actual problem, yet it seems like team-switching next campaign will be a bannable offense. Since there are no numbers showing that it is a problem I wonder what that' supposed to solve.

 

I can also understand if some people feel like making their effort more or less valuable depending on player count is an "ugly" solution, but what the heck do they suggest would be done instead? Unless something is done about the team balance TAW could just as well change to be a coop server where 80 Germans play against no Russians at all, aside from maybe some easy AI without re-spawn, and what fun is that for anyone?

 

HOWEVER. If we do some kind of balance that actually encourages even teams, why the hell would we ban players for switching to the less populated team so that the battles can be even? Isn't even battles exactly what we want?

 

 

I know that many players - especially players on LW - will go "But muh Luftwaffle!" if they can't get to play their beloved Germany, be it because they are a role-playing squadron or whatnot, but I got to announce something very, very shocking: TAW isn't a scenario-based, limited-hours-at-a-time role-playing server like you've found when you played CloD or hyper-lobbied in IL-2 1946. TAW is a 24/7 persistent server which requires even teams to function, but it doesn't have hand-tailored scenarios to account for the varying team sizes or where the outcome isn't as important as the participation. It may be fine to play 20 RAF vs 40 LW when 28 of the LW-players are mandated to sit in Stukas, Do 17s and Bf 110s and all 20 RAF-players are in Hurricanes and Spitfires, but that's not how TAW works. There are no such forced roles. There is no such pre-planned balancing. If that's the kind of scenarios you want to play you either need to go back to IL-2 1946/CloD, or you need to somehow get another server going which is focused on that kind of squadron-based role-playing-scenarios. TAW is not that place however.

 

You need to actually be a bit flexible on TAW. TAW is a generic, team-based multiplayer mode. It's basically a more hardcore Battlefield 2 of the skies, to be very blunt about it. How fun would Battlefield 2 be if there was no auto-team balance and one team is twice as big as the other, or even four times as big? The same concept applies to TAW whether people like it or not. I'd frankly say that if a person is against balanced teams on TAW, they are against TAW as a whole. Against TAW as a concept. So if they hate TAW that much, why do they at all play on the server?

 

The last thing I'm going to say might actually cause some heart attacks in this community (reading back in this thread I'm 99% sure it will): Some of us who play on VVS want to play on LW too, but since we can't do that without brutally super-skewing the team balance even more we can't play on LW. We're not ALLOWED to play LW on TAW because some inflexible dicks can't even grasp the concept of switching to VVS for a campaign, or even for just a few rounds. Because of that - even when it's a unique round of 16 VVS vs 2 LW or something (for the astonishing 2-4 hours a day that the VVS gets any meaningful advantage) we can't switch to the LW because then we just further contribute to the campaign unbalance by not letting VVS get some kind of chance to compensate for the rofl-stomping they suffered for 8 hours straight earlier that day. Be a bit solidary and let everyone play on LW, not just you.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SYN_Haashashin locked this topic
  • BlackSix unlocked this topic
  • BlackSix locked and unpinned this topic
  • BlackSix pinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...