The Pandemic That is Kalt

[ronpaul]

Hey guys,

I know I'm new to the clan but I'm going to stretch my credibility as a pretty decent player and as an avid Kalt enthusiast here to advance some long-standing observations and offer a theory: eGO's Kalt server is in a chronic state of imbalance. What I mean by that is... the Axis team is constantly and perpetually dominating the allies. I have played nearly 300 hours on eGO's Kalt server and I can definitively say that the Allies are the underprivileged team, by far. I know this is long, but hear me out...

This post is long, and your time is valuable. So, I broke it up into parts that you can skip and/or focus on. The introduction will identify the reasons for addressing this issue. The first part of this post will deal with some evidence to back my claim, the second part with the causes of the imbalance, and the third with a list of possible remedies. If you already agree with me, skip ahead to Part 2 for the reasons why or part 3 for the possible changes to correct this.

Introduction

Why do I bother to bring this up? Because with all the effort we put into balancing teams, checking the AFK, and ensuring an enjoyable and quality time spent on eGO servers, playing Allies on eGO Kalt is, far too often, an absolutely miserable adventure characterized by short lives, frustration, and a bad playing experience. Kalt is always the first empty server at night and usually the least populated of all the servers. Yes, it's not as popular a map, but the imbalance on Kalt certainly leads to a number of players simply quitting the server. There is a running joke on the Axis team (and I have heard this) where after winning a round an Axis player will say ?Oh, how many [Allied players] will leave this time?? This is unacceptable, I would contend, necessarily avoidable, and I offer a fundamental question on our administrative policy: does balancing the teams actually balance the teams?


Part I ? The Evidence

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of quantitative data to offer on the win/loss ratio of the Allies, but consider an anecdotal example that I'm pretty sure can be extrapolated to represent the majority of play on Kalt.

Please see the attached screenshot at the bottom.

In this screenshot of a typical game on Kalt the Axis have 806 points to the Allies 154. The Allies have won one round, the Axis 9 (they would go on to win the 10th in a matter of minutes). The time left on the map is 37 minutes, meaning 343 minutes have elapsed during this map cycle. Consider that a team receives 1 point every 30 seconds when they hold the bridge and their two defensive points. Also consider that a team receives 3 points every 30 seconds while holding the bridge and the enemy's street flag.

Assume that the Axis have possession of the Allied Street flag for 20% of the time (a pretty reasonable estimate). This means the Axis were holding the flag for about 69 minutes. Assume that they were holding the bridge for the whole time they held Allied Street.

Sixty-nine minutes multiplied by 6 points a minute means they received 411 points while holding Allied Street and Bridge. That means for the remaining 395 points the Axis must have held just the bridge around 198 additional minutes. This means out of a combined total of 343 minutes, the Axis have held the bridge and/or Allied second for around 267 minutes, or, were in control of strategic points for about 78% of the time. You can play with the standard deviation of the time Axis held Allied Street but it probably wouldn't be more than a few percentage points.

You can check my math: The 154 points that the Allies scored resulted from intervals of holding the Bridge. 154 points divided by 2 points per minute is 77 minutes, and 77 minutes plus the 267 minutes of Axis domination is roughly 344 minutes, almost precisely the amount of time the round has elapsed.

My friends, it is like this every day on Kalt. This is not balance, and it is not fair. The problem is systemic, constant, and rampant. Allied victories are far and few in between and most streaks of dominance are short-lived. The Allies seldom contain the Axis on their Street and they struggle to ever control the action in the sewers. The Allies need a gaggle of superstar players to contend with even a mediocre Axis team. I have a dozen screenshots that look just like this one, and my challenge to the skeptic is: find me a screenshot of the Allies ever winning by a similar margin on Kalt. If you can, I will forever rest my case. And so, with the imbalance established and recognized we ask ?why is this?? Read on...

Part II ? Causality

There are a number of reasons why the Axis are better on Kalt. In no particular order...

1. Rate of reinforcement
I conducted time trials on my server (which is configured very much like eGO's). The trials involved timing a player from the spawns of both the Allies and Axis to key points on the map. The points were the sandbags on either side of the Bridge and the center of the wheelhouse. This simulated the best times a player could make to effectively throw a grenade across the bridge, set up an MG on the sandbags, or drop down into sewers via the wheelhouse. The player was Raseri, whom some of you may know, and I told him to make the best time he possibly could (and he is quick both ways) utilizing sprint, jumping, etc., from spawn to these points. I fixed spawn points to slots in the centers of both spawn areas for 5 trials and randomized the remaining 5 spawn slots on each side. The results are the averaged times of the ten trials, and they are as follows:

        Axis spawn to Bridge: 14.58 seconds
	Axis spawn to Wheelhouse: 15.76 seconds
	
	Allies spawn to Bridge:  16.95 seconds
	Allies spawn to Wheelhouse: 16.82 seconds

I took statistics in college, I'm not prepared to crunch the numbers but I would say that these data are statistically significant and studied in the most empirical and practical way I could think of. The difference of nearly 2 and a half seconds to get to the bridge is almost certainly significant in the start of the round and anyone who has played Kalt can imagine why: grenades fly sooner, snipers are already stalking, and MGs are deployed and waiting.

The wheelhouse figures may be less significant, but all the same, they are relevant to an overall higher rate of reinforcement for the Axis. Consider two players, one Axis, one Allied, whose only action is to run to the Bridge after every death to do battle. Let's say they both die 180 times. The Axis player is going to save about 450 seconds, or 7 and a half minutes, just running to get to the battle versus the Allied player making identical moves.

2. Better weaponry ? If you've heard the arguments, you may move on, but if they are new to you...

Let's look at the weapons each side uses from a standpoint of practicality. My personal favorite is the support class, and most every dedicated support player prefers the STG 44 over the BAR. Why? Refer to the code below.

// Weapon characteristics:
        "Damage"                        "50"
        "Accuracy"                      "0.025"
        "SecondaryAccuracy"             "0.02"
        "AccuracyMovePenalty"   "0.1"
        "Recoil"                        "5.0"
        "Penetration"                   "1.0"
        "FireDelay"                     "0.12"
        "SecondaryFireDelay"    "0.3"

This is the decompiled script containing weapon statistics used for both the STG 44 and the BAR. The recoil, rate of fire, damage, and all else is the same and will always be the same for both weapons. The only difference between the two? The STG 44 has over 30% more ammunition per magazine. The additional ammunition is an enormous advantage to support players in the sewers or the wheelhouse where indirect or missed shots can deplete your ammunition and leave targets remaining.

The STG44 also has a higher point modifier in the HLXStat system, which baffles me by the way, but that means STG users earn more points and, consequently, lose less over time to deaths by the BAR (I think). Weapon files can be found in /orangebox/dod/scripts/ listed as weapon_*.ctx.

Machine guns. Is there anyone here who can claim to be better at the .30 Cal than the MG-42? If so, why aren't you on Kalt?? Because, let's be honest, with the exception of very few people the MG-42 is a far superior casualty producing weapon on Kalt. They are fearsome, their overheating is never a huge issue, and their rate of fire is so wildly suppressive that you cannot slip through a burst of MG-42 fire (I can literally strafe in and out of a stream of .30 Cal). Yes, that's subjective, but eGO prefers the MG-42 and from my experience it is the superior weapon on Kalt. Want numbers? The MG-42 accounts for more than 40,000 more kills on eGO servers than the .30 Cal (as of 8-17-09). Moving on...

The rifle. The K98 is a ranged monster that tends to fare much better than its Allied counterpart. I say it tends to fare better not because the weapon is better (that is for a different thread) but because the players that use K98's are usually better than those who use Garands. I can think of a dozen very capable K98 riflemen off the top of my head and only a handful of Allied rifleman that could match them (on Kalt).

The assault. The Thompson and MP40 are very similar weapons, official DoDs stats place the Thompson slightly ahead in terms of usage (as does eGO) but headshots are shooting at about the same here so the effect of these weapons is negligible.

With superior weapons, what follows must be...


3. Better players.

Yes, I went there. There is an ingrained mentality on Kalt. The perception is that the Axis are the better team (which they are) and therefore the better players continue to join them and, as a result, the Axis play better. The cycle perpetuates itself indefinitely. These players flock to the better weapons because, why? They perform better with them. Did I mention that the STG 44 hits at ~26% headshots versus the BAR's ~18%? With identical weapon characteristics, the reason for this is simple: Axis players (on the whole) have better skill. Players will sit as a spectator for 20,30, 40 seconds to a minute waiting for a slot to open up on the Axis team and they would do this before even considering joining the Allies. I've seen this, and we've all (mostly) been guilty of it at some point.

I could find dozens of first-rate Kalt players (or Avalanche players for that matter) who join the Axis more than 75% of the time (you can view this in HLStats by finding the player and viewing their ?Teams & Actions? tab). Challenge: find me three or more dominating forces on Kalt who have joined the Allies more than 60% of the time. Don't bother looking in the top 10, or the top 20, 30...

Perhaps there are more causes but I really think these are the most significant. Now, the pressing question is, what can we do about it?

Part 3 ? Remedy

Well, we can't alter the dimensions of the actual map so rate of reinforcement is simply not going to change. But there are some things we can change.

1. Adjust policy

A key tenet of the administrative process on eGO servers is keeping the teams balanced. Unfortunately, this policy only goes so far as regulating the player count on each team, and it neglects to address the bigger issue at play: the balance of talent. This is something I've never understood about eGO policy: What is the point of regulating player count if one player is as good as two? Or three? I think administration by numbers is a good start and good policy, but there ought to be a next step.

If you'll notice in the first screenshot I posted, the Allies have a numerical superiority which is producing absolutely no results. We have to address the talent needs of teams. Perhaps introducing a policy whereby admins might politely ask a top player to switch teams or classes. Of course, if they decline then you move on, but it cannot hurt to ask. Besides, we are already telling players things they cannot do: mic spam, chat spam, cheat, exploit, and what do all these things have in common? They are detrimental to the playing environment. Whether intentional or not, is team stacking (talent) any less detrimental? I would say no, but it is also the most difficult detrimental problem to tackle. However, why should it be allowed? Or perhaps...

2. Lower the Axis incentives.

Reduce the number of Axis MG slots or sniper slots to 1. The Axis don't need that much firepower to suppress the Allies, and it will get Axis players to start going Allies if they want to get their MG fix. Conversely, a better idea...

3. Raise Allied incentives.

Give them an additional MG or sniper slot and see what they make of the Axis then. Maybe it leads to a better Allied team, maybe it just leads to three bad Allied snipers instead of two.

Of course, taking away parity between the teams' weapons (via configuration) is a slippery slope, I understand that. If, miraculously, the Allies have three amazing machine gunners on their side this will create the same type of misery and problems seen now. I think they are fun experimental ideas to entertain but should probably not be considered practical. This is why I favor an administrative approach that can be healthily applied cross-servers to the benefit of everyone.


Conclusion

Maybe I'm wrong about the weapons, the players, and maybe my data is off on the reinforcement times. However, this problem exists. Maybe there's nothing we can do about the imbalance. Maybe there's nothing we should do. Does the weapon make the player or vice versa? There are those that will say this is how the game is played and it should be left alone. I can understand this argument. Some will say I've imagined or exaggerated the severity of the problem. I do not believe I have, and I hope this is not the case. I firmly believe that if we're at all concerned with fair play at eGO, which I know we are, it was at least worth shedding light on the issue for consideration. If you've made it this far I thank you for your time and patience.


What do you think?

 

[PeZku]

I play in Kalt mostly (You may have seen me ) and I think this is very true.

as Allies, it seems that we can get to the bridge and over to their street for just a while, and bam. Our MG gets shot down by a K98 (yes, the rifle that is practically a Sniper) and a batallion of STGs and MP40s comes and mowes everything down.

I also agree with Axis having just a teeny bit better weapons. Ofc many times it's the user that wins, but cmon, you cant say that the Axis Rifle isnt a cannon.

Giving Axis only one MG is a fine idea imo.

I dont have any ideas of my own, but Axis is indeed pwning.

 

[noxx_]

All I have to say is.. sucks to be that OORAH!!!!!!!!! guy lol

 

[Positron]

For the bad player part, I have been playing DoD for the past 5+ years and I still am not that good. Most likely it's because I just don't put that much time+effort into it. But it dose get frustrating when the team your on dose not work together as a team. I notice if you get on your mic and start trying to to get people to work together and get a game plan going it dose make a difference some of the time. But there are many players who care about nothing but there k/d and don't want to make the charge for the flag. For me I just go for it, no guts no glory. But in the end it's just a game and people will play the way they want and if they don't want to at least try then I will just go play on another map.

 

[micron1962]

Nice effort RonPaul...I know the frustration...Kalt is what drew me to eGO. I still consider Kalt the best map and at the same time the most frustrating map. I rarely play the axis side, because I like the challenge the allies have. Yes, nine times out of ten the axis will win. But that is the nature of the map. I on the other hand do not agree about changing settings. Leave the settings the way they are. Kalt is what it is. See ya in the sewers!

 

[(IO) SA]

great post rp and some interesting suggestions

 

[Damn_Dummie]

I second the notion of an extra 30 cal slot or sniper. I will not play Kalt on allies because I play to work on my stats. And its a miserable statistic nigthmare for allies. YOu should have stuck this in the DOD division forum.

 

[Rawwwwr]

I only play kalt as allies and depending who else is on the team we can hold our own

 

[Six String Samurai]

Well...

I think the better solution is instead of trying to adjust kalt...perhaps switching it out for a different, yet better, map.

Last I remembered from my old clan days and subsequent CAL-I admining, kalt always had short capture times between flags.

Meaning...if you timed it right, you cold kill someone at the second flag of either base and take the first before they spawned to stop you.

Kalt is too small of a map with very few non linear routes. It has less access points then avalanche (which is saying something). With three major choke points (Bridge, wheel house exits, and sewer steps).

I do not at all disagree with your representation of any of your points. Kalt is a "bad" map for balanced spawns, axis do have better weapons (kar98 one shot body kill vs garand's 90 dmg, and that makes a HUGE difference).

I think a much better solution is for those of us that are a part of this community is to be the balance and provide kalt with strong allied players in the form of...us.

Our poit ranking system makes it very difficult for anyone, me included, to join an avalanhce server and say "Ummm...allies are getting stomped, I'll join them and hope I get more points instead of less today!". When I realalized I stopped caring about the point system and much rather be feared as that crazy ninja who gets around all the MG positions instead, joining allies didn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Your arguements have swayed me not only to play more kalt, but to do it as an allied player...and I'll encourage others to do the same, but I still recommend that a different map beside kalt be added.

 

[saocartel]

well, this could be said for several maps not just kalt. if people truly believe the extra seconds of getting to the bridge(or wheelhouse, which i don't for the wheelhouse but agree for the bridge) is that important, then maybe ego would like to try a switch sides rotation mod. me and ronpaul both played on a server before we regularly played on ego and this particular server forced sides to switch after every round(it did retain player classes in case you are wondering). i think it'd be great to use on the servers.

it was silly of valve to think giving the bar more ammo clips would offset the the imbalance of a bigger ammo clip for the stg. as far as hlstats goes, it baffles me that a thompson gets more points then the bar, if anything the bar should get more then the stg.

to end this post though, this problem isn't just kalt, i can really only argue it is also problem on ava, since i don't play on the other maps, but i would assume it is a problem on others.

 

[Allster]

Seems like you haven't played Avalanche.
Allies have a MUCH harder time on that time than on Kalt

 

[clamup1]

i have found that if you try to get on Kalt after 6 est you might as well pick another map, your not getting in. ( i dont play every day though) i like playing allies b/c they always seem to loose. mostly bc they wont work as a team and no one wants to waller around in the sewers. ( i like the sewers now that i started dominating people heheheheh) i believe the sewers are the main weak point for both teams. if you cant control the sewers then your screwed.

my .02

 

[ronpaul]

Seems like you haven't played Avalanche.
Allies have a MUCH harder time on that time than on Kalt

Believe me, I know it's bad there, too. I tried alluding to this once or twice with references to avalanche in the post but my primary map is Kalt and that's what I focused on. I checked out a lot of top avalanche players and clearly the preference is Axis, with the exception of Sao who is a monster on either team, and I'm sure a lot of the causes here are the same there.

All the better reason to establish some cross-server policy to combat this, no?

 

[GumBa11Machine]

lol could you have anymore time paul =P

 

[Ict]

Reguardless

Despite the numbers, you can say that, for example the I think m-1 Granad, has better accuarcy then the its counter-part, being the rapid fire pistol, also the Kar86 might have better accuarcy but it isnt semi-automatic. In addition I do agree the Axis rule on this map, but sometimes(alot), rounds will go on for hours(I have experinced one) and usually end with the axis winning, but there have been times where allies cream the axis(not often) but it matter wether or no you have good players or not I agree also. So in the end...:facewall:

 

[Boyle]

Even teams

ronpaul I agree with your tactical and analytical observations for the most part. Where I differ is in how to manage a server. I have been asked to modify or even teams many times this past year, when I am the only eGO on a server. I have infused "my" style of admining with many others and this is my take on evening teams.

An e questioned me ingame recently about my fairness on the issue of uneven teams. His team was Axis and mine was Allies. It was small teams for the most part, 6 or 7 on a team. The Allies were winning most of the games during this session. Here is the voice chat and l will call this e anon:

=(e)=™ anon: common teams!!
=(e)=™ anon: you 2 ego should be stripped ominship
=(eGO)=™ Boyle: what is your problem
=(e)=™ anon: teams
=(eGO)=™ Boyle: teams are even
=(e)=™ Daddy: no skill over here

My pm reply to anon:
Thanks for the pm anon. Now to answer your question. No, the teams were not unfair at all. As long as the numbers match up or are close, that is all that matters. One of the jobs of an admin is to make sure, for example, that 5 people do not play against 3, or 7 against 4 for a long period of time. I will move myself to even teams or ask someone to come over from the other side to make things fair. If teams are 13 to 11 for example, then so be it, because there are enough players on each team to keep things fair. You can not micro-manage people going in and out of a game and over a short period of time the teams usually balance out. Was one team stronger than the other the day we played? Yes, as is usually the case. It is not your right nor anyone else to "decide" which team is stronger. What are you going to do? Are you going to kick someone off one team because he is better than anyone on your team? Are you going to tick a total stranger off by suddenly moving that person to another team just because you are losing a round here or there? Some people only play Axis and some only play Allied and if you move them they will quit and go to another clan server. An admins job is to keep the servers clean, keep the teams close in numbers, have fun and play the game. Your way anon would be to play dictator and put people were "you" wanted them to go. Try that and you will be called a cheater, especially if it makes your team better.

It is not my job as an admin to rate every player and equal out the skill points. Admins want to play the game. We keep it fair, keep it clean, keep it fun, without losing our rights to play the game. Every admin has their own style, but we have the same rules.

 

[X-KP]

Kalt has been around since close to the end of Beta 1.3 right? Or did it come out with retail 1.0? I really can't remember which. The points brought up here are about as old as the map it's self. I can remember the cries of "Oh God! Not another Axis dominated map!" very well.

And yes the Axis do, always have had, and always will have the advantage on Kalt. If you treat the weapons as a moot point because they are the same across all maps then you find that the times to the flags become important. However this is a small advantage in the grand scheme of things. The greatest advantage any side can have on any map is to play as a team.

It's becoming a lost art in DoD and in eGO because so many people are just not into teamwork anymore. They are more concerned with getting the achievements, with pumping their stats, with their KDR, or any other thing you can think of. The thing that most of folks are forgetting is that teamwork is the great equalizer for you stats, your achievements, your KDR, and almost every other game play concern you could have. A team of 16 mediocre playing will mop the floor with a team of "good" players as long as they have better teamwork.

So in my opinion the real issue here is not how do we fix Kalt, but how do we as a clan foster teamwork not only in our members, but also in the pubbers that play on our servers?


KP

 

[ronpaul]

My pm reply to anon:
Thanks for the pm anon. Now to answer your question. No, the teams were not unfair at all. As long as the numbers match up or are close, that is all that matters. One of the jobs of an admin is to make sure, for example, that 5 people do not play against 3, or 7 against 4 for a long period of time. I will move myself to even teams or ask someone to come over from the other side to make things fair. If teams are 13 to 11 for example, then so be it, because there are enough players on each team to keep things fair. You can not micro-manage people going in and out of a game and over a short period of time the teams usually balance out. Was one team stronger than the other the day we played? Yes, as is usually the case. It is not your right nor anyone else to "decide" which team is stronger. What are you going to do? Are you going to kick someone off one team because he is better than anyone on your team? Are you going to tick a total stranger off by suddenly moving that person to another team just because you are losing a round here or there? Some people only play Axis and some only play Allied and if you move them they will quit and go to another clan server. An admins job is to keep the servers clean, keep the teams close in numbers, have fun and play the game. Your way anon would be to play dictator and put people were "you" wanted them to go. Try that and you will be called a cheater, especially if it makes your team better.

It is not my job as an admin to rate every player and equal out the skill points. Admins want to play the game. We keep it fair, keep it clean, keep it fun, without losing our rights to play the game. Every admin has their own style, but we have the same rules.

Thank you for the insightful perspective on this, Boyle, and it's clear that you express the paradigm of the eGO administrative policy which I obviously accept and support, but I do enjoy discussing this so I hope you won't mind if I respond to your post. I think anon's "dictatorial" idea is a poor one (I would rather simply ask a team if a player or two would be willing to swap talent) but I also respectfully disagree with some of your philosophical ideas on administration, namely the definition of fair play.

We have testimony here stating that playing with this imbalance is both unfair, frustrating, and no fun in addition to constant. Personally, as a player, I would much rather tolerate an eGO admin politely asking me or my teammates to swap a player than I would playing for team at a perpetual disadvantage. Simply asking players is going to tick them off far less than playing for severely disadvantaged team. Occasionally being dominated is a facet of the game, but I think to come in night after night only to find yourself out-manned, out-gunned, out-scored and cornered is inherently unfair to the players willing to stick it out on the Allies. Kalt and Avalanche have the stigma for being point-farming servers on Axis and great places to die for Allies and I don't suppose this is by our design or will.

 

[Annihilator]

Dang Ron, you overanalyze Kalt worse than I do.... I love Kalt for exactly what it is. Most people hate it cause as a MG or Sniper your chances of getting flanked are so much higher, which me as an assault or support absolutely love. Hence why I think Kalt Snipers are the most worthless class in the map, followed closely by the MG's( only cause there a few spots in map that MG's mount that is next to impossible to kill them) One spot being in the wheelhouse laying down shooting in to the sewers, I think putting fire in that spot would greatly help, I consider that spot to be a exploit, because the mg'er can see you, but you can not see that MG inside.

Interesting right up, i will have to pull up the stats on victories in our server,

 

[WeaponX]

i always usually end up playing allies because they have less people and really now I'm more use to it, for me I think it is easier as an allie to flank bridge and such...but thats just me