Unbalanced Servers

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

why not use :

 

IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\LuaScripts\CBalancer.cfg

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

That's a great question that only the operator of the server can answer.

 

I personally would have no issues with auto balance.

[Haza]

Tomcat,

 

I think the only down side of auto balance is that there is an expectation of players joining the server and having no problems with being placed onto a side that they are unfamiliar with.  If the majority of players joining have no problem with this then the auto-balance as mentioned previously would be the way forward.

 

However, I believe that before you could implement the auto balance, perhaps some players might need the assurance that their stats are not going to be altered by playing on both sides, therefore perhaps the auto balance or the map developer might be clever enough with the stats sheet to reflect players scores for playing on either side, to show when they were red or blue.

 

That way, we would hopefully have the best of both worlds with everybody happy. 

[FTC_Riksen]

Tomcat,

 

I think the only down side of auto balance is that there is an expectation of players joining the server and having no problems with being placed onto a side that they are unfamiliar with.  If the majority of players joining have no problem with this then the auto-balance as mentioned previously would be the way forward.

 

However, I believe that before you could implement the auto balance, perhaps some players might need the assurance that their stats are not going to be altered by playing on both sides, therefore perhaps the auto balance or the map developer might be clever enough with the stats sheet to reflect players scores for playing on either side, to show when they were red or blue.

 

That way, we would hopefully have the best of both worlds with everybody happy.

 

+1

[NO_SQDeriku777]

Tomcat,

 

I think the only down side of auto balance is that there is an expectation of players joining the server and having no problems with being placed onto a side that they are unfamiliar with.  If the majority of players joining have no problem with this then the auto-balance as mentioned previously would be the way forward.

 

However, I believe that before you could implement the auto balance, perhaps some players might need the assurance that their stats are not going to be altered by playing on both sides, therefore perhaps the auto balance or the map developer might be clever enough with the stats sheet to reflect players scores for playing on either side, to show when they were red or blue.

 

That way, we would hopefully have the best of both worlds with everybody happy.

 

The real problem is that small player numbers in U.S. timezones means that all players gravitate to one and only server, WOL. WOL is effectively THE multiplayer experience for many of us. When the server crashes and no one is around to fix it, the game is effectively not playable in multi-player (Berloga aside). Balance issues are not so serious during European prime time so this is not something that WOL admins really care about. To really resolve this requires getting people onto an actively admin'd server in the U.S. with auto-balance.

[Tuesday]

There's more than just two servers in that list...

 

Notably for North American TZ players is the recent update of [TWB]'s The Eagle Nest - NA.  Missions done by [TWB]Sketch and the server now hosted by 19//p3zman.

 

It's a nice change to not have somebody shooting 100-200m behind you plane getting the kill on you because of their latency. 

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

There's more than just two servers in that list...

 

Notably for North American TZ players is the recent update of [TWB]'s The Eagle Nest - NA.  Missions done by [TWB]Sketch and the server now hosted by 19//p3zman.

 

It's a nice change to not have somebody shooting 100-200m behind you plane getting the kill on you because of their latency. 

 

How active is the Eagles Nest during NA hours? I'd love to server hop, the original Eagles Nest used to run the best mission sets before it shut down.

[FTC_Riksen]

The Eagles Nest is indedd very good in terms of warping. In additiin, it is a lot of fun. I just wish more people would fly on it during US prime time

[Trooper117]

I always liked flying for the 'underdog' when I went online... Lack of numbers or inferior aircraft, I didn't give a hoot.

It always made any success in whatever mission I was flying that much better, knowing that the odds were against us.

 

I've also never been in favour of 'balanced' teams either... I was online to get a flavour of WWII air war tactics, mission achievement if possible, and playing with and against good people.

 

Winning or loosing never came into it... 

[JG13_opcode]

Doesn't the eagle's nest have that stupid supply flight mechanic?

[ACG_pezman]

Doesn't the eagle's nest have that stupid supply flight mechanic?

 

No I don't believe there is a mechanic for the supply flights (to rearm or repair or get aircraft back).  However there are JU-52's on the server with rather interesting missions designed for them by Sketch.  In one mission you have to land the JU-52, taxi to a certain location, and wait for the ambulance to come out and load you up with wounded soldiers.  Then you have to take back off and fly to a completely different airfield with a hospital and land, taxi to another area, then have them unloaded.

[=SqSq=switch201]

The problem with Eagle's nest is that it does not seem to be tailored to handle player counts greater than 25 or 30. On days when Wings has been down, people have gravitated towards eagles, but it was super laggy because of the higher than usual player count. I also prefer the number of different objectives and missions in WOL vs Eagles nest. Eagles only has a limited map selection and the maps have relatively few objectives. This is good for when there are only 15 people on the server, but if it ever got more popular I think the maps would need to be updated with more objectives.

 

Not to mention Eagles does not have Kuban planes available as far as I am aware.

[=SqSq=switch201]

 

 

Tomcat,   I think the only down side of auto balance is that there is an expectation of players joining the server and having no problems with being placed onto a side that they are unfamiliar with.  If the majority of players joining have no problem with this then the auto-balance as mentioned previously would be the way forward.   However, I believe that before you could implement the auto balance, perhaps some players might need the assurance that their stats are not going to be altered by playing on both sides, therefore perhaps the auto balance or the map developer might be clever enough with the stats sheet to reflect players scores for playing on either side, to show when they were red or blue.   That way, we would hopefully have the best of both worlds with everybody happy. +1

+2

 

GIVE US 1 VIRTUAL LIFE PER SIDE PLEASE! 

[NO_SQDeriku777]

Can someone from TWB comment of what is needed to bring the server up to snuff? I know Jason/1C would rather the community sort this out organically but really the viability of the game depends on a rich multi-player community in the U.S. They should be encouraging more to encourage the dissemination of maps/scripts. A perpetual monopolization of the player base by European servers leads to a problem where the balance issues, ping issues, and server uptime issues for off-time play that affect users outside of Europen timezones are considered to be non-issues by the server owners because it doesn't really impact them.

 

No one is asking 1C to buy an American server but they really need to take more of an interest in what is happening. Their sales to new players will be driven by how active multiplayer is. If I bought the game recently and jumped on to play some weeknights in the U.S. I would rapidly conclude hardly anyone was playing the game and I wasted my money. WOL is down and no one is awake to reboot it, well I guess you are out of luck for the night.

[Bearfoot]

So, full disclosure: I am one of those who intentionally adopts the "play-on-the-side-of-the-smaller-numbers-to-balance-things-out" policy; but, at the same time, this is my personal choice, and not one I would try to impose on anyone else.

 

On Il-2 MP, there is indeed a major bias toward the Luftwaffe side, for whatever reason. That means, for the most part, I end up flying VVS. Specifically, the Yak-1/b[*1].

 

But here is the strange thing, on DCS, the lopsided-ness is distinctly the other way. On typical WW2 servers (e.g. Burning Skies: you can check representation on each side in real time here) it is not uncommon to see 2:1 ratios of Spits + Stangs vs Bf-109's/FW-190's. This is especially strange because the 109 in the DCS (K) is easily and objectively the most capable aircraft in the game, and, at the same time, not the most difficult to fly[2*]. 

 

So, I am not sure what the motivations for selecting a side across the communities. I think preference for a particular aircraft type may play a role for some people some of the time, sure. But I rather suspect that some sort of nationalism/cultural bias may come in as well? 

 

[*1] Initially, when I first started Il-2, I was a pretty committed Bf-109 fan. But I just felt too guilty hopping in a LW a/c when I would log in to find 23 vs 10 or something like that. So, I very reluctantly decided to start to learn the Yak-1. And a surprising thing happened: I came to like it! Very, very, very, much! And I also found myself quite a bit better at it. Maybe I am a turn-and-burner at heart, and never really was good at using the 109 to its strengths.  

 

[*2] I find that, despite what I was expecting, while the Spit can definitely out-turn the 109, the 109 is not actually a terrible turner, and can keep up with the Spit all but the tightest turns (though it looses energy rather quickly). The 109 also has a lot more horsepower under the hood, and yet (relative to the Spit) has very simplified engine management. It is a tricky thing to take off in, but I contend the Spit is more. And not only is the Spit's engine management more complex, but due to needing to keep airspeed above 180 MPH for cooling, you paradoxically have to chop the throttle in steep climbs, relying on inertia to see you through, or you will blow your engine once your speed drops below 180 and you have any significant throttle. With the 109, just keep your RPM around 2300-2400, kicking it up to 2800 for short stretches when you really want the power. Not to mention that in the Spit you have to keep glancing in the cockpit to check your speed when you are close the 180 threshold, whereas with the 109 you keep your eyes out almost entirely.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Bearfoot

[SCG_Neun]

I think over time I've come to have a more understanding approach in this problem, but it just seems that the player base just doesn't have the numbers to offset the problem.  The fact that we have low numbers in addition to different concepts of playing the simulation even breaks down to smaller concentrations of players with like minded styles of play.  Some guys gravitate to the historical unit setting and usually stick to one side, and others just want to experience the game from all aspects.   It's tough trying to hold things together especially with the ever increasing limited amount of time that we can devote to this passion of ours.  I've come out with this idea and that idea, and I've even been harsh in my opinions from time to time.  In this environment, there's no blame on why the numbers aren't there, it's just the way it is.  

 

So for all our efforts, it's not going to get better as DCS and Team Fusion push out new theaters and guys start being pulled into more combat flight simulation options.  Jet's......Helicopters, Normandy, Tobruk, well you get my drift.  I can appreciate the difficulty trying to bridge the gap in the numbers disparity, but first, we need numbers to work with. For our unit, it's a time of readjustment as the guys branch out experiencing the other simulations. I'm not sure what the future has in store, but our unit is adjusting to allow our guys to fly Hurricanes in CLoD or Mustangs in DCS, with most of our guys still centered on LW aircraft interests.  We shall see how this evolves.  For an old guy like me, it's a time to admit that things are a changing and I need a more open minded approach.  The days of hundreds of guys huddled around Hyper Lobby are over.  But maybe.....

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

All the Reds were flying CloD today as those numbers looked like the ATAG server.

 

Red out numbered Blue 2-3 to 1 most of the time

 

But we still cleaned red's clock, cuz blue. 

 

[Willy__]

Its even right now, 9-9.

[WWGeezer]

My only comment is we fly COOP's and our squad currently prefers to fly German. I load up the AI with Russian AI so that when a live pilot does join flying Russian they are far from alone. The focus is not so much about "winning" or " balanced sides" but about running the mission goals and having a good time. The few live Russuan pilots that joined, had a big impact on the mission and seemed to have a good time.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Considering Russians just won Last Month on WoL AGAIN..

any arguments on balance seem a little pointless as obviously the teams were still not balanced enough if they wont with
Inferior bombers, Inferior Fighters, and Lack of players.

[-SF-Disarray]

Sshadow, your argument lacks any logic what so ever. If the Soviet aircraft were, as you say, inferior then with fewer numbers they would not win. If you want to stack teams that is on you, but don't make BS excuses for it. And to set the record strait the IL2, one of those inferior bombers, was one of the most successful ground attack aircraft of the war in terms of payload and surviveability. If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty of it the Soviet fighters aren't exactly inferior to the German planes. Yes the Germans can be faster but a good Soviet pilot can force the German into a maneuvering fight where the German's advantages are nullified to some respect.

 

But all that is beside the point. This topic is about how servers tend to be overwhelmingly one sided in favor of the German side. What dose the Soviet team's winning have to do with this? Further how is it fair that one team should always have the numbers advantage, sometimes to the extent of 3 to 1? Why should players like me always have to fly Soviet in an effort to balance the teams? Why is it fair that you get your way all the time and people like me, who are struggling to provide a good play environment, should have to just deal with the consequences of your selfishness?

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

I've stepped away from multiplayer since making this post but it looks like things haven't changed much. I'll check in again when the Spit shows up, maybe that will help balance the sides for a short period and make playing online fun again for a few weeks.

 

Fingers crossed.

[DickDong]

I don't know what the solution is but it does seem to be getting worse.

 

I used to fly in a JG squad, and it certainly wasn't as bad then as it seems now; I certainly don't remember flying in 40 vs 20 scenarios (or perhaps I've blocked out the memory because of the shame!)

 

I would love to fly the axis aircraft more online but just never can, I always try to balance the sides now, but then you take an Il2 up and get bounced by 4+ 109s before the target. It just isn't fun and I find myself thinking 'time to do something else'.

 

Maybe it is partly because it is difficult to fly on the more 'strategic' servers (Random and TAW) when you can't fly as a squad so you just end up on WoL,... hoping it is reasonably balanced.

 

Luckily for me I like single player and have a lot of hope for the upcoming new campaign system.

 

 

 

But if you're not part of a historical squad, please just try flying allied when the sides are so skewed, your server-stats don't define who you are!

There's usually one or two dudes minimum on the TAW Teamspeak perside, more for VVS typically. Im assuming this is the server you usually chek. Per our TS thread discussion, will suffice as a temp squad. The tools are there, ppl dont use them.

 

Who cares if its uneven, combat aint fair. More targets to shoot at. Cowboy up.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Banzaii

[CUJO_1970]

The only answer is for Allied side to put more players in the air. Hopefully the Spitfire will bolster the numbers...surely the P-39 and A-20 will?

 

I really can't stand joining a server only to see the airfields locked up. I will tell it like it is - I'm a FW-190 driver and that's all I'm really interested in doing when I join a server. 

[-SF-Disarray]

Why do people see that there is a problem, know how to fix the problem, and still refuse to be part of the solution? This is madness. I get liking a certain plane, I have planes I like too but I don't always have to fly those planes, more often than not I don't get to fly some of these planes.

 

And for those of you who think adding in the Spitfire will fix this, I'm here to tell you that it probably won't. What I foresee happening is people joining the Soviet side to see if the Spitfire is available and when it isn't they will either join the other team or just leave the server. That or the Spitfire won't live up to their expectations and they will wright it off as a broken plane and go right back to being part of the problem again. There is no way servers are going to add Spitfires to every map, hell WOL hasn't even added in the new IL2 to any of their missions, and there is no way there will be enough of them for everyone to get to fly one. Planes aren't the answer, people are. Unless and until people are willing to come over to the other side, literally, and be part of the solution this problem will remain.

[CUJO_1970]

Why do people see that there is a problem, know how to fix the problem, and still refuse to be part of the solution? This is madness. I get liking a certain plane, I have planes I like too but I don't always have to fly those planes, more often than not I don't get to fly some of these planes.

 

Saying that people who only fly one side or one plane type is part of the problem is so far off the mark it's not even funny...those are a rather big part of the core people that support this entire thing and keep the servers full. Yeah, it's all our fault.

 

There seems to be some misguided sentiment among a lot of people that you are obligated to balance the teams because Allies can't put enough pilots on a server...no and sorry not sorry.

 

Get more pilots Allies...or consider not jumping in T-34 and playing World of Tanks when you join if your side is short on pilots.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Saying that people who only fly one side or one plane type is part of the problem is so far off the mark it's not even funny...those are a rather big part of the core people that support this entire thing and keep the servers full. Yeah, it's all our fault.

 

There seems to be some misguided sentiment among a lot of people that you are obligated to balance the teams because Allies can't put enough pilots on a server...no and sorry not sorry.

 

Get more pilots Allies...or consider not jumping in T-34 and playing World of Tanks when you join if your side is short on pilots.

 

I don't see what is off-the-mark about it.  How could it not be?  I was on WoL and it was me, my wingman, and some other guy on VVS side, and there were double digits on the other side.   And then all of the VVS left, because nobody wants to just be there to provide a training target for some Luftwaffe-Only mob.  Some of those guys could've switched, but they didn't, so they wound up with a server empty of adversaries.   Don't mind a little imbalance, and if I feel like flying German, I have no problem going in on German side myself even if the numbers are close but unequal, but at some point, like when people are going in on a side that is already almost two to one, it gets a little ridiculous.  Good thing is, I think that generally the imbalance is not as bad as some make it sound, because I think there are people who would prefer to fly German, but also recognize the problems caused by excessive imbalance.  If nothing else, some people recognize that they paid for a lot more than just a Bf-109 or FW-190, and want to get their money's worth out of it.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Iceworm

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

Saying that people who only fly one side or one plane type is part of the problem is so far off the mark it's not even funny...those are a rather big part of the core people that support this entire thing and keep the servers full. Yeah, it's all our fault.

 

There seems to be some misguided sentiment among a lot of people that you are obligated to balance the teams because Allies can't put enough pilots on a server...no and sorry not sorry.

 

Get more pilots Allies...or consider not jumping in T-34 and playing World of Tanks when you join if your side is short on pilots.

In a sim this niche there should be no Allies or Axis only pilots or clans. That's the heart of this problem.

 

In case you haven't read the rest of this thread it's not a bunch of Allies crying about being outnumbered. It's a group of people who care enough about the health of this sim to fly Allies (even though they may not want to) in order to try to best balance the sides.

 

We're bitching because we would also love to fly Axis once in a while but can't because with 2 or 3 to 1 odds it would be bad for the sim. After being forced to fly only Allies and mostly outnumbered for months, many of us have had enough of it and have simply walked away leaving servers filled with all Axis teams having nothing but ground targets to shoot at. What did you think would happen?

 

The solution isn't creating Allied only squads. The solution is being a good sport and hopping to whatever team is outnumbered in order to balance sides.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Y-29.Sulaco

[CUJO_1970]

I don't see what is off-the-mark about it.  How could it not be?  I was on WoL and it was me, my wingman, and some other guy on VVS side, and there were double digits on the other side.   And then all of the VVS left, because nobody wants to just be there to provide a training target for some Luftwaffe-Only mob.  Some of those guys could've switched, but they didn't, so they wound up with a server empty of adversaries.   Don't mind a little imbalance, and if I feel like flying German, I have no problem going in on German side myself even if the numbers are close but unequal, but at some point, like when people are going in on a side that is already almost two to one, it gets a little ridiculous.  Good thing is, I think that generally the imbalance is not as bad as some make it sound, because I think there are people who would prefer to fly German, but also recognize the problems caused by excessive imbalance.  If nothing else, some people recognize that they paid for a lot more than just a Bf-109 or FW-190, and want to get their money's worth out of it.

 

Airfields get locked on DED Normal when there is an imbalance. It's not as bad as it used to be (that's the way it seems anyway)

 

Sometimes it's LW that is outnumbered, I've been in several 1 against 4 fights, and that seems to suit allied pilots just fine when it happens

[CUJO_1970]

In a sim this niche there should be no Allies or Axis only pilots or clans. That's the heart of this problem.

 

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I don't think the issue is as dramatic as you are making it sound.

 

You can blame people like me all you want, but we aren't the problem.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I don't think the issue is as dramatic as you are making it sound.

 

You can blame people like me all you want, but we aren't the problem.

Cujo, you're a longtime member of this community and a valuable one.

 

All I'm saying is that if a member isn't willing to switch sides (regardless of team) in order to help balance things out when one side is outnumbered by 2-1, then they're absolutely part of the problem. Whether their unwillingness to switch comes from a die hard "I only fly Axis/Allies" mentality, a lack of knowledge, a lack of caring or whatever.

 

If I was playing a team sport in real life and one side had 5 players and the other had 10, I would be jumping ship to even things up so everyone had a good time. We seem to be a pretty tight knit community so I have no idea why the same can't hold true here. 

 

No idea how bad things are at this point as like I mentioned, I've stopped playing online.

[-SF-Disarray]

Saying that people who only fly one side or one plane type is part of the problem is so far off the mark it's not even funny...those are a rather big part of the core people that support this entire thing and keep the servers full. Yeah, it's all our fault.

 

There seems to be some misguided sentiment among a lot of people that you are obligated to balance the teams because Allies can't put enough pilots on a server...no and sorry not sorry.

 

Get more pilots Allies...or consider not jumping in T-34 and playing World of Tanks when you join if your side is short on pilots.

 

So let me get this strait: The problem is that there is a near consistent numbers advantage to one side of the game. There is no lack of planes or ability to fly for either team. There is a finite number of people playing the game at any one time and there is a finite number of people playing on any one server at a given time; unless you know a way to magic up more players that is. Did I get all that right? I think I did. So tell me, how am I off the mark by saying that it is the players who are on the side with a consistent advantage to numbers are the problem? Given this set of facts I don't see any other conclusion that can be made. It isn't as if there are fewer planes for the Allies to fly so naturally there are less of us in the air at any one time. It isn't as though there is some historic condition that servers are trying to recreate, just the opposite of what you see on most servers would be the case if that were so. So what else could it be?

 

And just to put your mind at ease, I don't play Soviets in World of Tanks. I don't play that game much at all, but on the occasions I do I prefer the American tanks. At least the teams are balanced though. No, when the sides get uneven on a server I'm on in this game I either play it out or, on the very rare occasion I find myself on the German side of the line, I switch sides to try to keep things fare. It isn't really all that hard, switching sides. You just click the button and you are there. May be you should try it some time, rather than condescending to people that are trying to make things better.

[Aap]

It seems that to achieve some kind of balance on servers, it would need to be done by some kind of tehnical solution from server admins. For example:

1. Set the cap for side at half of total player slots. Or maybe half+1, so a wing pair can join the same side, when they are joining together, when only two slots are open.

2. For half empty server, set a function that limits joining a side if it's size is 1.5 times bigger than the opposite side, once there are enough people, for example 25, on the server.

[KG200_Volker]

Ermm, nobody seems to care...

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29516-unbalanced-servers/?p=476281

[CUJO_1970]

Just as I suspected - Spitfire has increased the quantity of Red flyers - and increased quantity of red flyers is the only viable solution to this.

 

Flew many sorties over the weekend and following days outnumbered by red flyers and they didn't have the slightest problem with it. Also, never saw dedicated red flyers changing up to even teams

 

Right this second red flyers on 1CGS Normal outnumber blue by better than 2-1...lol, what will we do with these unbalanced servers?

Edited July 12, 2017 by CUJO1970

[Aap]

The previously mentioned balancing logic would work both ways obviously.

Edited July 12, 2017 by II./JG77_Kemp

[-SF-Disarray]

CUJO, what are you talking about? I just got off a server, WOL, that was flying 5 to 19 in favor of the German side (that is nearly 4 to 1 for those keeping score at home) and that has been the trend over the last few days following the Spitfire's release. Adding one plane on some of the maps isn't fixing anything, even when the Spit is available the numbers run about the same as they were before it came out in my experience. The only things that will fix this, in so far as I can see, is either more German players suck it up and play for the other team or servers start forcing people to play on the other team. That is it. There is no magic bullet for this one that will solve the problem without any changes among the players.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

CUJO was referring to Official Normal server just as he stated in his post.

 

I assume that server has the Spitfire available 100% of the time vs WOL only having the Spitfire appear on maps where it is suited.

 

Ive seen the Spitfire appear twice on WOL since the release and I fly most nights in my timezone.

 

Are you still seeing low numbers on WOL in your timezone even when the Spitfire is available on the map?

[Willy__]

Last time I flied on WoL the russian team was outnumbering the german one, but only on maps that the spit was available. When there was no spits, the germans were outnumbering the russians.

[-SF-Disarray]

The last time the Spitfire was available on WOL when I was on there were about 40 people on the server, most were German players.