killing mod?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Bear]

if your FJsniper is dieing to a MG you should just stop playing EIR and maybe settle for painting pictures in MS paint.

JT is fine its gimpy gun hurts everything
Tiger and other heavy tanks always seem to have chaotic pathing
As for the P4 i guess your spamming to many commands in too many directions overloading the units AI
Hotch Stuka, as Icelandic said stop firing it at max range. the thing excels at mid to short range barrages.
if you think KCH need a buff then i will redirect you to the afformentioned paint alternative.

the jt need this vs sp...
and chain had use a tiger not jt...
better vet be only good for already good player but maybe EIRR want be a exclusive club for good player....
the p4 was by my last game driving different as I was knowing him..
I know no better discripting as dancing for this what the tiger is doint if he should just driving backward, his ass swings from left to right and back the hole time...
my hotchkis was pretty nearly to the mg and bofor in the situation, I know this thing with the range....
and riflenade guys can just kill all inf and that is it than?

and I know you XIIcorps, you want just OP allied...

[XIIcorps]

the jt need this vs sp...
and chain had use a tiger not jt...
better vet be only good for already good player but maybe EIRR want be a exclusive club for good player....
the p4 was by my last game driving different as I was knowing him..
I know no better discripting as dancing for this what the tiger is doint if he should just driving backward, his ass swings from left to right and back the hole time...
my hotchkis was pretty nearly to the mg and bofor in the situation, I know this thing with the range....
and riflenade guys can just kill all inf and that is it than?

and I know you XIIcorps, you want just OP allied...

would it kill you too know that i play both sides, and that while i will always have a bias towards brits being somewhat weaker then their axis counterparts.
I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT AMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN OP. which is almost always the source of the "allies are OP" statement.

As for the tiger, What map were you on ? do you have a rplay of the tiger and its "bogus" pathing ?

Riflenades are a non retalitory weapon, they should always be used to fire at range and retreat, if your blindly throwing KCH into their line of fire then its your fault not the units.
Use something to counter them other then infantry, the exact thing they are desgined to take out.

THE HOTCH, so one game you get crappy rolls on its barrage accuracy and its in need of a buff ?
how about you do what the scientific community does and gather large amounts of data on a particular subject, draw your own conclusion from said data then submit it to the community for peer review.

[GORKHALI]

storms r stupid now , they r  only good now with mp 40 ,with elite armor they rape , but don't give em shreks coz they useless on storms coz if it was in real they would hve blown them self up then the enemy tanks, coz they can't hit shit at all , grens do better job with shreks and they r cheaper as well.

[Bear]

would it kill you too know that i play both sides, and that while i will always have a bias towards brits being somewhat weaker then their axis counterparts.
I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT AMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN OP. which is almost always the source of the "allies are OP" statement.

As for the tiger, What map were you on ? do you have a rplay of the tiger and its "bogus" pathing ?

Riflenades are a non retalitory weapon, they should always be used to fire at range and retreat, if your blindly throwing KCH into their line of fire then its your fault not the units.
Use something to counter them other then infantry, the exact thing they are desgined to take out.

THE HOTCH, so one game you get crappy rolls on its barrage accuracy and its in need of a buff ?
how about you do what the scientific community does and gather large amounts of data on a particular subject, draw your own conclusion from said data then submit it to the community for peer review.

ok, that is a fail of me I do never save the games and public they,
because this be mostly loses of me public in forum.
but I will not do it, is to much work for me but I think chain and I have played the most games the last 2 years because we be every year summertime there to, if all other not play eirr, why ever...
and if I say somethink so it is true I be different other as the most human in this community!
would it kill you too know that after so much years I play here?
I think the tiger do this of all maps, bacause this I play never Tiger since years, only jan. this year the tiger was good and I have play him to some games...
Chain and I was playing forest.
and maybe you play both sides but I know you as brit player, so sorry...

I must go working bb

[Rocksitter]

 Ok Shab so Portland has lost a few games but when team gets back healthy right in time for finals push they still win so dont feel down.

[Uglysori]

I think it would be interesting to put it to a vote to bring back doctrines.  

Putting them back in is going throw things off given some of the changes but I will think it will add some flavor to all the doctrines right now.

It will be far more difficult to measure out the effect of baseline changes with doctrines in place.  The question is was 3 months enough time to have tested baseline balance?  Throwing out the idea of truly abandoning VCoH balance were we able to identify the underperforming units that needed to be tweaked?

The other issue that will pop up is that in the end doctrines in their full glory is still only temporary given the clear goals of the dev team to bring about more toned down doctrines with the new launcher release.  So the community will have to deal with non-buffed units in the meantime (no docs) or deal with nerfed units once new launcher comes out assuming the devs have finished up their vision of the new doctrine system.

Looks like the majority of units that at least I initially thought should be tweaked were in the past couple of patches:
"Tigers, Wirblewinds, Pak-36(?), Hummel, Priest, Piats(?), Mk6, ISTs, Flakverliengs, Hotch Stuka"

I know the changes also brought up one possible issue that I heard of which was is sprint on 5 man Pgrens too powerful for a vanilla line unit given their cost?

Feel like ppl should just open balance posts in the Balance forum and figure out if the changes have worked.






 

[tank130]

given the clear goals of the dev team to bring about more toned down doctrines with the new launcher release.

Holy shit, I think you set a new forum record for the most uninformed comment......lol

The extremely clear goal of the dev team is to bring on more powerful doctrines with the new launcher release. We will be getting rid of all the bullshit stuff and focusing on some real impact stuff.

The difference will be that all doctrine buffs will cost resources. This gives us the ability to create powerful buffs and balance them.

[Uglysori]

Holy shit, I think you set a new forum record for the most uninformed comment......lol

The extremely clear goal of the dev team is to bring on more powerful doctrines with the new launcher release. We will be getting rid of all the bullshit stuff and focusing on some real impact stuff.

The difference will be that all doctrine buffs will cost resources. This gives us the ability to create powerful buffs and balance them.

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=27838.msg479044#msg479044

Sorry if I misinterpreted the team's goals.  My impression over the past months from the thread above and other threads is that the dev team realized that old doctrines because of their multiple authors and said author's ideas of balance were very difficult to balance and work with given the new vision of the team and that they were as you said "bullshit" because they often too overly powerful because of the scope and magnitude of the units they affected.  Ie. old Asymmetric warfare trolol.

Given that in that thread it was suggested that the new doctrine balance would be more:

"Exactly, most doctrine abilities that actually introduce interesting gameplay dynamics can easily be turned into purchasable abilities. The other ones, mostly plain stat buffs, we are better off without anyway. In most case these type of abilities are pointless filler, i.e players will often not notice their effects but they still end up skewing balance. (Particularly when there's a lot of them stacking and what no)"

I made the mistake of assuming that that means that the new vision of doctrine unlocks would be toned down and better balanced.  I mean how can we rail against the "bullshit" which was making too many things too powerful to effectively balance with the old doctrines and not expect the new ones to be toned down?
   

[EIRRMod]

The bullshit thats being referred to here Uglysori - is the multiple buffs of different types per unlock.

Like, on some of them, there were 3-4 'buffs' to different units on the same doctrine unlock - it became terrible to balance as it was just a clusterfuck of multiple 'if this does this, then this might be too powerful' circle-jerks.

Toning down isnt the goal - making the selections have actual impact, while being 'interesting', is the goal.

[Uglysori]

The bullshit thats being referred to here Uglysori - is the multiple buffs of different types per unlock.

Like, on some of them, there were 3-4 'buffs' to different units on the same doctrine unlock - it became terrible to balance as it was just a clusterfuck of multiple 'if this does this, then this might be too powerful' circle-jerks.

Toning down isnt the goal - making the selections have actual impact, while being 'interesting', is the goal.

Make sense.  I guess my vision of toned down would be instead of a T4 like Storm Tactics, which basically upgraded all PE infantry on a SE company - you would see a toned down single unlock that would, for instance, upgrade Tankbuster squads to 3x squad leader rifles.

[EIRRMod]

Make sense.  I guess my vision of toned down would be instead of a T4 like Storm Tactics, which basically upgraded all PE infantry on a SE company - you would see a toned down single unlock that would, for instance, upgrade Tankbuster squads to 3x squad leader rifles.

That actually would be a viable unlock.
The balancing would then be in the cost of that ability onto the squads you choose.

The ratio of benefit:cost would be better than 1:1, but a cost nonetheless, so you are not just 'shuffling' a squads cost up for an equal benefit.

[Uglysori]

Great, this is what I meant by thinking how you guys would be "toning down" the doctrines.