How I would balance sides + camo rules

Here you can tell us any ideas or suggestions for Berget 18!
Post Reply
Panzergraf
Major
Major
Posts: 643
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
Location: Norway

How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Panzergraf » 10 Jul 2019, 00:24

Well, I've been thinking about this quite a bit. And whined and complained quite a bit too, if you've followed the Camo Threads over the years :P

Writing camo rules is always challenging, as you have to do two things; create two evenly balanced sides, while also creating two sides that look distinctively different. And if you also want the uniforms to fit some kind of background setting, you've made your job even harder...

Berget attracts players from lots of different countries where different uniforms are popular. Very few here in Northern Europe play airsoft wearing desert camos, and I doubt you'll find many Portugese airsofters with a full winter kit in their closet.

A B8 Berget achieved what I'd call peak "distinctivity" - NAF and Poldavia looked very different, to the point that you almost didn't need armbands.
But balance was very bad. NAF was limited to desert camos, and there weren't that many chosing that side.
The past few years balance has been rather good, at least in terms of booked players for each side, but if you lined up 100 players from this years GFM and 100 from TFC, without armbands, you'd have a hard time seeing which side is which. The camos are just all over the place.

Here's my suggestion;
Return to something like B8, where you have lighter colored uniforms on one side, and darker on the other, BUT give "Blueland" some of the lighter colored woodland uniforms, like Norwegian M98 (it's been a Blue camo the past few years anyway).
Blueland
blueland camos.jpg
Blueland
blueland camos.jpg (170.72 KiB) Viewed 637 times
If you have a camo that's lighter colored than Norwegian camo, then it belongs on the Blue side. This obviously includes ALL desert camos, as well as solid tan uniforms. (or white winter over suits, if you wish :wank: )
Blueland has an Infantry unit, a Mech unit, a Milsim unit and a LARP unit.


Redland
redland camos.jpg
Redland
redland camos.jpg (247.24 KiB) Viewed 637 times
If you have a camo that's darker, then it belongs on the Red side. NO desert camos on this side!
Redland has an Infantry unit, a Mech unit, a Milsim unit and a LARP unit.

This should achieve better balance than the B8 camo rules did, while still making Redland and Blueland somewhat visually distinct.

But there's no guarantee this would make the sides completely equal, so here's another idea:

In addition to Redland and Blueland, you have Yellow-land.
olive drab.png
Yellow-land
olive drab.png (144 Bytes) Viewed 637 times
They wear solid green, mostly consist of infantry with a few vehicles.
While Redland and Blueland can have a player limit of 1000 players, Yellow-land should be limited to 100.

In the background story, Yellow-land is neutral, but both Blue and Red are putting diplomatic pressure on them to join their side.
This situation is still not resolved untill gameday.

On gameday, the crew will check how many players checked in to each of the sides.
If, for example, it turns out that 850 players check in to Redland and 700 players checked into Blueland, Yellow-land will join the Blue side.
They will still wear green uniforms, wear yellow armbands and have their own little base, but they will answer to Blueland's command structure and press the blue buttons on the capture points.
Both sides will be notified at game start that Yellow has joined Blue. There will be no surprise backstabbings. NOTHING that happens in-game can make them switch sides. That has always been the problem when there are more than two sides at these games, suddenly something weird will happen and people you thought were allies will turn on you. People never like that.


Vehicles:
Like always, each side will have a mech unit, but rather than limiting the number of players in the mech unit - limit the number of vehicles.
Let's say 20 vehicles per side. All players must still have a seat in a vehicle, but it shouldn't really matter if there are 5 players pr vehicle, or 10.

BAVS:
The AT-4 is a handheld Death Star at the moment. They should be limited in number, and distributed evenly between both sides, and also between units within each side. This year our mech platoon had ZERO AT-4's, but we saw infantry squads with 2 or even 3 tubes, in a single squad.
It's impossible to balance when they're handed out in a random lottery...

Tanks:
I get it, they're both owned by Tom, and it wouldn't be fair to him not to let him decide which side they join, but... Wouldn't it be more fun with one tank on each side?
Veteran of 11 Berget Games
B6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
B17 - Red Mech

Henke
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Nov 2011, 16:19

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Henke » 12 Jul 2019, 09:26

Hello!
I like the ideas that panzergraf has.
But one thing I would like even more to help everyone (atleast me) to tell friend from enemy is that you must wear the colourd armband on both arms.
Also make it so that the armband are included in the price.
The "extra" armband could be made out of colourd tape or an old armband. (Tape could be distrubuted to each HQ)

/Henrik

GhostNL
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: 29 Mar 2018, 22:47
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by GhostNL » 12 Jul 2019, 10:35

Henke wrote:
12 Jul 2019, 09:26
Hello!
I like the ideas that panzergraf has.
But one thing I would like even more to help everyone (atleast me) to tell friend from enemy is that you must wear the colourd armband on both arms.
Also make it so that the armband are included in the price.
The "extra" armband could be made out of colourd tape or an old armband. (Tape could be distrubuted to each HQ)

/Henrik
This would destroy the fun you should have with this type of game.
The next step is to highlight everybody with neon lights or with flags on a stick. :P
If we are going to use colors as absolute team markings, it's not necessary at all to make a difference in camo colors.
We used the armband color only to double-check if we made a positive identification.
Berget 16 - NAF infantry, squad leader
Berget 17 - TFC infantry, platoon commander.

User avatar
Windi^
Captain
Captain
Posts: 379
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 13:46
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Windi^ » 12 Jul 2019, 11:37

How about solid colors vs all camos? At leats it would be more distinctive...
B5, FFF Turku-2 Squad leader
B6, SRP Snake 1-0 Platoon leader
B7, SRP Bull 1-0 Platoon leader
B8, Civilian, 6mm merc
B9, UN, 6mm Company, 1st PLT leader
B10, Zanzia, Delta plt, Link officer
B12, Yuri Orlov Mercenaries
B14, NAF HQ Intel S2
B15, NAF HQ Intel S2
B16, UPIR HQ QRF
B17, GFM ODA3

Panzergraf
Major
Major
Posts: 643
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
Location: Norway

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Panzergraf » 12 Jul 2019, 12:45

In that case I think the solid color team would end up way undermanned compared to the camo pattern team.
Most people will pick the side where their primary kit belongs (and some people only have that one kit) - very few are willing to invest in a new kit just for Berget (or any other game), even if the uniforms themselves are cheap. So it's best to work with what people have got.

I also agree with GhostNL that relying purely on armbands is not a good option, even though it would solve a lot of issues in terms of balancing, it's not good for immersion. It would take the game in a more tournament-style speedball direction, which I don't think many people would like.
We used to have events with 200+ players here in Norway using no armbands at all, so it is possible not having to rely on them.
Henke wrote:
12 Jul 2019, 09:26
Also make it so that the armband are included in the price.
The "extra" armband could be made out of colourd tape or an old armband. (Tape could be distrubuted to each HQ)
I agree with this though. Just make the armband included in the price, and make red/blue tape available from the HQ (even with only 1 armband required pr player, you never know when it could come in handy).
Maybe vehicle flags too.
Veteran of 11 Berget Games
B6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
B17 - Red Mech

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 694
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Arradin » 12 Jul 2019, 14:22

Panzergraf wrote:
10 Jul 2019, 00:24

Vehicles:
Like always, each side will have a mech unit, but rather than limiting the number of players in the mech unit - limit the number of vehicles.
Let's say 20 vehicles per side. All players must still have a seat in a vehicle, but it shouldn't really matter if there are 5 players pr vehicle, or 10.

BAVS:
The AT-4 is a handheld Death Star at the moment. They should be limited in number, and distributed evenly between both sides, and also between units within each side. This year our mech platoon had ZERO AT-4's, but we saw infantry squads with 2 or even 3 tubes, in a single squad.
It's impossible to balance when they're handed out in a random lottery...

Tanks:
I get it, they're both owned by Tom, and it wouldn't be fair to him not to let him decide which side they join, but... Wouldn't it be more fun with one tank on each side?
Hello!

Balancing camos is a fine art in itself that i am no part of, so i won't touch that subject myself ( But i pass it on like Everything else )
I will get back to you when it comes to camos, but as i said many times Before, Camos need to be balanced based on what people use them. If we put all popular camos on one side, then that side will get too many players, we tried this several times. And when we hard-cap number of players on a side, we lose overall players, because those players will play team X or no team at all.

Vehicles:
I dont see how the number of vehicles have any impact on game balance, its the ANTI-vehicle Equipment that makes the balance.
It wouldnt really matter if one team has 100 vehicles if one AT4 is so OP that you claim, Yes? ;) ( Im pulling your leg here, hope you notice )
We dont want to deny any vehicles to come to berget, people spend insane amounts of Money and time in them. We rather put more effort into different anti vehicle stuff ( like the drone )

BAVS:
This year they were distributed exactly as you suggest. Even within teams, even withing teams within the teams. Looking back at how the game Went, we should have had extras to give to blue side, but thats a lesson for next game.

Tanks:
Sorry, No. It would be more fun for everyone except tom and the tank crews. They have made it very clear that they work as a pair, and i COMPLETELY understand that. One tank clear mines while the other shoot, etc etc. An armored minesweeper vs a tank would be no fun fight anyway. Tom has made it very clear that they only work as a pair.
You can reach me directly at email: berget@arradin.com

Panzergraf
Major
Major
Posts: 643
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
Location: Norway

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Panzergraf » 14 Jul 2019, 21:08

Arradin wrote:
12 Jul 2019, 14:22
Hello!

Balancing camos is a fine art in itself that i am no part of, so i won't touch that subject myself ( But i pass it on like Everything else )
I will get back to you when it comes to camos, but as i said many times Before, Camos need to be balanced based on what people use them. If we put all popular camos on one side, then that side will get too many players, we tried this several times.
Yes, suggesting a set of camo rules that make two distinctive looking teams while also being balanced in regards to which camos people would actually prefer to use was my objective here. My suggestion takes this into account - or at least it tries to.
Vehicles:
I dont see how the number of vehicles have any impact on game balance, its the ANTI-vehicle Equipment that makes the balance.
It wouldnt really matter if one team has 100 vehicles if one AT4 is so OP that you claim, Yes? ;) ( Im pulling your leg here, hope you notice )
We dont want to deny any vehicles to come to berget, people spend insane amounts of Money and time in them. We rather put more effort into different anti vehicle stuff ( like the drone )
Yes, what the limit on vehicles end up being is not the important bit here (20 was an example, and I think more than that would just end up in traffic jams), but rather a change in how people book tickets to the mechanized units. The number of tickets here have always been limited, and a few times in the past I've heard of people not going to Berget because mech tickets were sold out and they wanted to bring a vehicle. And at at least one of those games, it turned out that a large portion of those tickets had gone to players without vehicles, who hoped they would get free rides just by buying mech tickets...

Basically I'm just suggesting the limit in size of the mech units is stated as a set number of vehicles, rather than a set number of players with vehicles.
So, for example (and only an example!) red mech could have a limit of 20 (or 30, 40, whatever) vehicles rather than 200 players.

Ultimately, you have a limit on the number of BAVS receivers you can hand out anyway.
BAVS:
This year they were distributed exactly as you suggest. Even within teams, even withing teams within the teams. Looking back at how the game Went, we should have had extras to give to blue side, but thats a lesson for next game.
I was under the impression that people pre-ordered the AT-4's, and then a draw was held to se who actually got them? I know they were distributed evenly between Red and Blue, but it did seem that within these factions, the launchers were not so evenly distributed. At least the AT-4's weren't, and they're the only relevant BAVS weapon, really. (the 40mm grenades are no where near as effective)
And once they were handed out and people had paid for them, it wasn't like you could redistribute them based on tactical needs either.
("hey, I know you paid €€€ for this Launcher, but we need it now, so hand it over")

At previous games (way back), the Launchers were distributed directly to the faction HQ's, who then assessed which units needed them more.
In terms of gameplay this is a much better solution, in my opinion. However, I get the economical aspect of it too - these things cost a bit to make, and if you rent them out for cash, they pay for themselves...
Tanks:
Sorry, No. It would be more fun for everyone except tom and the tank crews. They have made it very clear that they work as a pair, and i COMPLETELY understand that. One tank clear mines while the other shoot, etc etc. An armored minesweeper vs a tank would be no fun fight anyway. Tom has made it very clear that they only work as a pair.
Yeah, as I said, I totally get that they belong to Tom, and it's up to him. But still... (and don't the minesweeper have a TOW as well?)
Veteran of 11 Berget Games
B6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
B17 - Red Mech

Balder
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 5
Joined: 01 Jul 2019, 20:38

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Balder » 20 Jul 2019, 16:54

Putting desert variations of camos all on one team, and the woodland variation gives people more ability to choose which side they play on, without having to use a uniform that isn't "kocher" for their kit. Not all berget players are divas (read: impressionists), but it doesn't hurt to throw them a bone nonetheless.

Pzgrf for dictator!

Balder
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 5
Joined: 01 Jul 2019, 20:38

Re: How I would balance sides + camo rules

Post by Balder » 20 Jul 2019, 17:00

Regarding vehicle balance: the more vehicles on a team, the less significant they become. What's worse: spending lots of money but not making the draft, or having too many vehicles and feeling like you spent all your money on a cardboard box?

Making vehicles easier to kill so as to balance them might end up with some vehicle players spending all week in base waiting for their vehicle to respawn....

Post Reply