Is the game still horribly unbalanced?

By high TTK do you mean fast kill times or slow kill times? People tend to get the meaning confused. Compared other shooters I've played, PS2 is along the "die super fast" side of kill times. ...Unless I'm up against or playing as a heavy assault.



But on the topic of the post: It's a little bit of people wanting their numbers to look better, and a little bit that dying without really having a chance to even compete just isn't fun. Both kind of go hand in hand naturally. Be concerned with one will automatically mean concern for the other. Even in arena shooters where it can be 4v4 and up, it's common to see players on one team leaving when they're getting stomped flat by their enemies. It just isn't fun staring at a spawn screen or squeezing the trigger and never getting that dopamine kick that is beating another player.

PS2 isn't an arena shooter and so it doesn't have any strict population control in a given battle, nor does it offer handicaps to the under populated side in said battles. What's sad is players don't want there to be handicaps (they're generally thinking of themselves being on the winning side though.) If we're not going to somehow encourage players on the under dog team to keep on fighting the good fight, we don't get to get upset when those players pile into the team kicking their *** with already bloated numbers. Or you know, if they're loyal but don't want to waste their time with a frustrating experience as another exp pinata, playing another game. That's always an option.

Balance is boring.

There are plenty of symmetrical game offerings out there. Perhaps they are more to your taste.

According to who?

"High" as in it takes a long time. But I guess I'm more used to games like Red Orchestra and Rainbow 6 where 1-2 bullets = death. That's why I think the current system of ~50% bonus exp when you're horribly outnumbered is not very effective since you aren't really generating much exp anyway. This is due to the fact that, compared to a game where 1 shot kills, 2 players kill you twice as fast; meaning the effect of numbers is exaggerated.

Strict controls on population are never a good idea, I understand that. However I think incentivizing players to maintain balance should be pursued more aggressively. The issue is that the incentives should be in the form of positive reinforcement, not punishments or gameplay handicaps.

Imagine this: If a battle remains at 2:3 or worse odds for more than 5 minutes, it sets off an event in that region where players on the initially underpopulated side gain a passive trickle of DBC (something small, like 1/min) until that side hits at least 45% population plus an additional 5 min (to encourage people to stay and play).

Obviously the concept needs refining, but it provides an incentive to move to the outnumbered faction without directly affecting game balance. It also gives people a choice between gaining exp/territory/VPs and gaining a chance at cosmetics. The reason I use DBC as the incentive is based on my experience playing SMITE; they offer the purchasable currency as rewards for participating in events. Strategies like this have minimal effect on people's decision to buy if they would already buy and it provides more "content" in the form of F2P players more likely to participate in the event.

Don't mind him. He's just bitter in general.

The actual likelihood of that working is very small. More than likely, people will mob to the event location, outnumbering the other side. Then the formerly over pop side is outnumbered, and either disperse upon the initial defeat or get reinforced by a very large (if not entirety) of their faction on the continent whose members are also looking for some free DBC, resulting in one massive battle now taking place. Kind of accomplishes pop balance, but doesn't actually improve behavior. Actually, it discourages people from reinforcing jack until an event pops, because free DBC!

Naivete has no place in game design.

It's better to look whether or not are both sides challenged? Population balance is one aspect, but it can't really be the ONLY aspect, or we're going to see the problems we do now. Faster spawn times would help artificially bolster the under popped team's numbers as just one prime and probably ideal example. If one side has half as many guys as the other in a given battle, they should probably be respawning closer to two times as fast as normal. Mind, they'll still be limited by their resources and simultaneous player count. 100 guys vs 50 guys is still a lopsided battle, even if those 50 respawn within 5 seconds of dying instead of the usual 10-15.

Yeah, I know a system as simple as that is unlikely to be useful, but some way to make players want to have even battles could only be beneficial. What really needs to happen is a paradigm in which there is a balanced choice between attacking with advantage and defending with disadvantage. Although I do believe that designing a system around any given population being greedy and/or stupid is going to be the most effective design.

Me.

Both.
Because it's the easiest way to "win", which means advancing through enemy territory and getting a good KDR. When you outnumber the enemy chances to flank take off, while chances to be flanked drop. It's easier to farm, because you already know from where they come from (the spawn room). There is basically very little reason not to do it.

What we are missing imo is a good incentive to block a zerg. And xp / resources bonus won't help. What we need is to make players play for territory control before personal stats. The next update goes in the right direction but we definitely need an overhaul of the stats system: get rid of the deaths counter and show xp splitted per category.