Multiplayer Campaign WOOOOOOOOT!

[r5cya]

If Auto Balance is on, it just has to stop switching the same player. Other than that, you can't have greatly lopsided sides.



Very minor issue in my opinion, only seen a couple of people complain about it . In fact when there was an imbalance, I've seen players (including myself) voluntarily switch sides. You can't stop players from leaving a server and that could potentially leave an imbalance.

I don't see that as a reason (by itself) to hold up the mode because it bothers some people. I mean, the Mkb bothers me, yet for some reason its still in the game...

i Agree with you, Moe. i don't see it as a big enough problem for TWI to shelve the mode. there were probably a few other reasons as well. but that one i know for a fact they commented on as to why they put it on the shelf. i don't have many matches on the mode, but i sure liked the ones i did play.

Perhaps community should enhance the campaign mode. I like to play really long sessions where I can get into the game, campaign would be great for that.

great idea. since you brought it up, what are youe ideas for enhanceing it?

Has anyone seen a campaign victory for the Allies yet? :X

last time i played it the allies rolled the axis on every map. just lucky i guess.

 

[BlackLabel]

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577859993180656721/D96FB7D2FFBA397908149BF256760B7491370B18/

 

[r5cya]

[url]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577859993180656721/D96FB7D2FFBA397908149BF256760B7491370B18/[/URL]

you caught that. cool, huh?

 

[Adenru]

[url]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577859993180656721/D96FB7D2FFBA397908149BF256760B7491370B18/[/URL]

Spelling... It hurts!
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/594748491746636725/8A19A577754B180AD1638D8D1FD2B1660DF081E7/

 

[TrOOper]

I can see how autobalancing creates a problem...However, one would think there would be a way to make autobalance take effect only as a last resort.
Consider the allies have won 2 matches....German players feel like they are being steamrolled and begin to quit. Only let newly arriving people join the German side. If the Germans still continue to lose, only add new players to the German side until they win or they have 6 to 8 people more than the other team.( the exact number can be set by admin) Once they win, have folks join allies until the sides are even again or auto balance at this point using the newest arrived players.

Its too good a mode to let it die......

 

[JosephBaier]

I can see how autobalancing creates a problem...However, one would think there would be a way to make autobalance take effect only as a last resort.
Consider the allies have won 2 matches....German players feel like they are being steamrolled and begin to quit. Only let newly arriving people join the German side. If the Germans still continue to lose, only add new players to the German side until they win or they have 6 to 8 people more than the other team.( the exact number can be set by admin) Once they win, have folks join allies until the sides are even again or auto balance at this point using the newest arrived players.

Its too good a mode to let it die......

because 64slot server can support another 7 to balance a team? And what happens (oh my..) if the new players go right back from where they came because they don't want to join a crappy team that gets steamrolled?

 

[TrOOper]

because 64slot server can support another 7 to balance a team? And what happens (oh my..) if the new players go right back from where they came because they don't want to join a crappy team that gets steamrolled?

Evidently you have a failure to comprehend. If both sides are full, there is no problem. Its people leaving for one reason or another that leaves one team with more people and then being autobalanced....which is what people seem upset about. Im just trying to come up with a workable solution . Is that easier for you to understand ?

 

[JosephBaier]

Evidently you have a failure to comprehend. If both sides are full, there is no problem. Its people leaving for one reason or another that leaves one team with more people and then being autobalanced....which is what people seem upset about. Im just trying to come up with a workable solution . Is that easier for you to understand ?

I don't "failed to comprehend".
full 64 slot server. Your idea: "German players begin to quit. Only let newly arriving people join the German side. If the Germans still continue to lose, only add new players to the German side until they win or they have 6 to 8 people more than the other team"
so if 10 people drop from the axis team and the server has 10 more slots to fill, how could they outnumber the allied team at any point? I doubt mostly nobody will drop (from allies) when his team is steamrolling (and if, the amount would be too small - and please don't bring stuff from other Threads in this discussion).

Workable solution? If you see that the enemy team gets screwed and you are a good player? Join them and motivate some of your team members to do the same. I don't think a lot of people will actually do it but it's still better than overloading a server with 72 slots (which is not possible - atleast that's what I think, because there are no high slot servers)

 

[TrOOper]

I don't "failed to comprehend".
full 64 slot server. Your idea: "German players begin to quit. Only let newly arriving people join the German side. If the Germans still continue to lose, only add new players to the German side until they win or they have 6 to 8 people more than the other team"
so if 10 people drop from the axis team and the server has 10 more slots to fill, how could they outnumber the allied team at any point? I doubt mostly nobody will drop (from allies) when his team is steamrolling (and if, the amount would be too small - and please don't bring stuff from other Threads in this discussion).

Workable solution? If you see that the enemy team gets screwed and you are a good player? Join them and motivate some of your team members to do the same. I don't think a lot of people will actually do it but it's still better than overloading a server with 72 slots (which is not possible - atleast that's what I think, because there are no high slot servers)

sigh....one more time....I never said anything about exceeding the 64 slot limit...people quit for what ever reason and auto-balance takes effect.. This is creating problems for some people...I was trying to come up with a way that keeps autobalance as a last resort....no more, no less.....if both sides have 32 players, there is no auto balance and there is no problem.

 

[JosephBaier]

sigh....one more time....I never said anything about exceeding the 64 slot limit...people quit for what ever reason and auto-balance takes effect.. This is creating problems for some people...I was trying to come up with a way that keeps autobalance as a last resort....no more, no less.....if both sides have 32 players, there is no auto balance and there is no problem.

And I was talking about: "only add new players to the German side until they win or they have 6 to 8 people more than the other team"
ofc there is no auto balance when both teams are full. If 1 team is pwning, people tend to stay on it/switch to the winning team if a slot gets open. While the other team gets less and less. So basicly it will be a 25-32 vs 32. You can't outnumber the winning team (mostly full) if the server has only 64 slots. Only solution for that idea: increasing the slots or decreasing the current slot number (64) to something like 58 so it has a buffer of 6 player.

 

[r5cya]

because 64slot server can support another 7 to balance a team? And what happens (oh my..) if the new players go right back from where they came because they don't want to join a crappy team that gets steamrolled?

how does bringing up an example of something that isn't even possible to do, help in any way prove your point?
you'd get your point across much better if you leave the sarcasm, herp derps and snide/rude remarks at the door.
we're all on the same team here. it's a discussion forum for RO2 players. not a battle forum where we try and make people mad and start flame wars.

 

[JosephBaier]

how does bringing up an example of something that isn't even possible to do, help in any way prove your point?

HE suggested to take 6-8 more guys in 1 team to outnumber the winning team. I made this example to show him that it wont work. So ye, it proves my point pretty well.
quote me the flame war I started with him, I was rather polite than rude.
And yes, I noticed that sarcasm is a bad idea when people take it for real, I'll try to keep away from it in the future.

 

[r5cya]

HE suggested to take 6-8 more guys in 1 team to outnumber the winning team. I made this example to show him that it wont work. So ye, it proves my point pretty well.
quote me the flame war I started with him, I was rather polite than rude.
And yes, I noticed that sarcasm is a bad idea when people take it for real, I'll try to keep away from it in the future.

sorry. i hadn't noticed he mentioned it first.(well i did, but didn't interpret it the same way) i take it back. my second point still counts though. being nice.
i'm still baffled why TWI hasn't said anything about this game-mode in the last couple days. it's obvious we want this back. i rarely read any negative comments on campaign mode.

 

[Yoshiro]

We have joined servers with it on and are watching it play out in the community.

 

[BriscTW]

Played the campaign again for around 5 hours tonight, not sure where the time went. Only got auto balanced once from allies to axis after about 4 hour playing. I manually changed back to allies when there was space it only took about five minutes of attacking my own team.

 

[G_Sajer]

I'm glad TWI is looking at this with some degree of interest. My first priority is supporting the RS release, but my second wish would be to get a stable campaign server going. I like the entire concept, but the mode is just a little too lock prone right now. I'm kind of sitting on the fence, but I have the resources to make a campaign server go if I am confident that I can keep one from crashing every 24 hours.

 

[doomis]

Haven't read most of the thread but I reinstalled HoS during the sale and have spent most of my time on the 40-1 classic campaign server. Never had a crash and only a few swaps here and there (and those were during the map selection, not during the fights). Overall my experience with campaign mode has been excellent though. My only concern is the maps people choose sometimes

 

[schepp himself]

Haven't read most of the thread but I reinstalled HoS during the sale and have spent most of my time on the 40-1 classic campaign server. Never had a crash and only a few swaps here and there (and those were during the map selection, not during the fights). Overall my experience with campaign mode has been excellent though. My only concern is the maps people choose sometimes

Same here. No problems. I only voted for graintower as attacker once. Bad mistake...

Greets
Schepp himself

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I still say minor problem with only a few people at a few times when one side begins to loose and some people get sour and leave.

Keep in mind, people leave for all sorts of other reasons; work, sleep, go outside and get fresh air, bathroom, dinner, dropped connection, go out on a date (so I have heard ) etc etc.

If a few people are that touchy about auto-balance or whatever is needed then perhaps they shouldn't be playing Campaign mode to begin with. It certainly isn't forced upon them and I doubt every server out there will run it exclusively. You can't make this mode please every single ROHOS player out there, you can't and you'd be a fool to try.

 

[General_Lechna]

Im not a big fan of the cp mode. At the moment it is really buggy and all those stockmaps are so overplayed.