Flaws in the PP/XP "Bonus" System

[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

[31stPzGren]

After having played a game where we were lvl 1 vs a lvl 6 axis. I notice a very big flaw in the PP/XP "Bonus" system.

The disatisfaction of playing an extremely one-sided game can never be paid off by anything else. If we were up playing against an opponent who could genuinely outplay us through good flanking, bringing the right counters, exploiting our weaknesses and coordinated attack.

I would say that was a good game.

When a game is lost, because certain units cannot be killed at all due to veterancy, then there lies a big problem in the amount of benefits that veterancy gives.

So what if I gain 20 PPs in that game? I rather play 2 games which is more even, or go and play a noob stomp where I can win and get 20 PPs as well. The "reward" is minimal and pathetic.

Of course the choice of map played wasn't exactly fantastic, which brings me to think that there should be a few points this mod should address.

1. Maps should have a consistent design across the board, allowing room for both rural and urbanised fighting. This is because there are players who build their armies in a certain manner that benefits from playing specific maps. The idea is to give room for these armies to excel, by letting them think tactically where they should attack/defend etc to win, rather than to pick a map where they'll just win.

Maps like RTC easily comes to mind where you have a big open field an its an 88 heaven. Other things could be the increased efficiency in use of support weapons due to a heavily urbanised environment, rendering your MGs rather tough.

2. Do not reduce the benefits a high tiered player get from playing a game. If he wins, he should get about 10 PP, if he loses, he hsould get about 5PP. The point is to greatly increase the incentive for the newbie player. They should 5 PP/XP bonus per difference in level. i.e. a level 3 player face off against a level 1 player, they'll get a flat off 10 PP/XP bonus. If a level 5 face off against a level 1, they'll get a flat off 20PP/XP bonus on top of the normal winning & losing PP/XP gained.

3. Increase availability of allied Snipers. I have ranted on this time and again. Allied snipers need to be increased to an availability of 2/1. This is mandatory because the superior amount of firepower the axis units can deal out requires an "instakill" "antivet" unit.

4. Reduce the benefits that veterancy give. Making veterancy easily obtainable was a good job, in stopping players from "choosing games". Now you need to reduce the benefits that veterancy give. Veterancy should be no compensating factor for poor play.

5. Give offmaps to newb advantages, availability of only 1. This will allow a single chance at breakthrough. If they waste it, thats their problem. For allies this can come in offmap arty, for axis either in firestorm or in defensive rocket barrage. Or you can give it in another format by giving them consistent "arty support" by giving them 1 Hummel/Priest which can be called in at 5 popcap with normal abilities either with a longer cooldown, or as per normal.

In Conclusion
At the end of the day, I find no point in picking "even" games and playing with players of equal skill, losing tons of units to win the game, when at the end of the day, they just retreat their units, keep their vet. Lose the early games and win later when they've got vet.

Buildings are now garrisonable, which will "revolutionise" your EiRR gameplay significantly again. It is time to re-look into the costs of everything now.

[AmPM]

Why should Allies get more snipers? Short of the Mortar HT and .... umm ....

Yea, so short of that, you have a massive advantage over say, PE, where our base infantry costs more, and is worse than yours. We have no HMG, no sniper, no long range effective arty, no ATG other than a Marder (which is not recrewable, and uses more pop).

How about, don't play on maps you don't like. If they want to play RTC and defend, too bad, you don't play it.

Allies are more than capable of winning games just fine. So is everyone else. Some are just harder vs certain builds.

[EIRRMod]

Thanks for your input 31stPzGren, although you have missed entirely what PP/XP is for - that doesnt matter eh?

PP/XP is your progression marker, coming in late to a war - playing higher ranks, means you gain more.  Thats it.
Its not a 'counter' to the other, higher ranks team - just a bigger risk / reward in doing so.

Offmaps are not given as training advantages, as people who constantly reset their companies (you included) would gain something that they have no right to use.
Passive/Defensive abilities encourage using the 'gifts' in a tactical manner.

[31stPzGren]

Yea, so short of that, you have a massive advantage over say, PE, where our base infantry costs more, and is worse than yours. We have no HMG, no sniper, no long range effective arty, no ATG other than a Marder (which is not recrewable, and uses more pop).

PE has a different play style. I don't play PE, I won't comment for PE. You have schimmwagens, use them.

How about, don't play on maps you don't like. If they want to play RTC and defend, too bad, you don't play it.

Ah, so you're saying we should just abandon games since we don't agree on maps?

Allies are more than capable of winning games just fine. So is everyone else. Some are just harder vs certain builds.

Its not about even match ups. I never said its "harder vs certain builds", I'm talking about difference in player level.

Thanks for your input 31stPzGren, although you have missed entirely what PP/XP is for - that doesnt matter eh?

PP/XP is your progression marker, coming in late to a war - playing higher ranks, means you gain more.  Thats it.
Its not a 'counter' to the other, higher ranks team - just a bigger risk / reward in doing so.

I understand thats what PP/XP is for, I'm thinking about whether its worth a bad game... or not.

Offmaps are not given as training advantages, as people who constantly reset their companies (you included) would gain something that they have no right to use.
Passive/Defensive abilities encourage using the 'gifts' in a tactical manner.

I don't reset my company. I just can't play as much. If you've lost the town and you need to get it back. You're going to have a big problem. Recon only does so much good for allies, though its more beneficial for axis.

[Guderian]

All the map problems your describing hehe, my new map i am working on will fix all of those problem entirely.


Hint:

The main road is inspired by foy (guess the game)


But to comment on the PE: I love them, they excel and their perfect right now.


To the xp post i have to agree.

The even out of noobs vs proos Pros playing with noobs vs pros in terms of benefits

[Baine]

What's with all the availability shit. Nobody says you can only buy 1 sniper. If you really think you benefit from 2 snipers then buy another one for a small SP cost.
This way snipers won't be that common and people will be more careful, especially when they bought them for SP.
And: Nobody says you should play against a higher ranked opponent, and whats the point in advancing through the ranks, with new unlocks and advantages when you can get destroyed by a Level 1 guy with a basic army? (Not saying it couldn't happen)

And yes, the maps is a problem itself, because it always comes down to what map you play. We need more maps like Come du Mont, with urban and rural places mixed.

[31stPzGren]

All the map problems your describing hehe, my new map i am working on will fix all of those problem entirely.

Release that asap.

What's with all the availability shit. Nobody says you can only buy 1 sniper. If you really think you benefit from 2 snipers then buy another one for a small SP cost.
This way snipers won't be that common and people will be more careful, especially when they bought them for SP.

Snipers always die, they are extremely hard to get it vetted properly. Any good player will harbour a motorbike gang to kill the sniper. More often than not you will lose one sniper and that costs 5 PP each. I don't think its worth 5 PP if you still lose the game.

And: Nobody says you should play against a higher ranked opponent, and whats the point in advancing through the ranks, with new unlocks and advantages when you can get destroyed by a Level 1 guy with a basic army? (Not saying it couldn't happen)

Simple. SKILL > veterancy + unlocks should be the way to go. Not Unlocks + Veterancy + Offmap > Pwnzor's skill.

And yes, the maps is a problem itself, because it always comes down to what map you play. We need more maps like Come du Mont, with urban and rural places mixed.

Come Du Mont requires quite a bit of arty... looks good on paper but could use abit more tweaks and less hedges to be better. City's too cramp as well.

[Rocksitter]

 I think the sniper availability is fine I always thought that the sniper was to powerful but i think decreasing his availability has worked out good...

[TheWindCriesMary]

 The biggest problem with this post, right off the bat, is that it starts with a common, legitimate concern that can and sometimes does exist within the current mod (players with low ranks feeling unsatisfied with just the PP/XP bonus they get for playing much higher rank enemies), and then ludicrisly tries to exploit that relatively small problem (one that has a relatively easy solution) in order to try and manipulate changes that the author (Pzrgren) wants.

 It's the classic leech argument.

 Lets start at the beggining though.

The disatisfaction of playing an extremely one-sided game can never be paid off by anything else. If we were up playing against an opponent who could genuinely outplay us through good flanking, bringing the right counters, exploiting our weaknesses and coordinated attack.

I would say that was a good game.

When a game is lost, because certain units cannot be killed at all due to veterancy, then there lies a big problem in the amount of benefits that veterancy gives.

  Just wrong. Yes highly vetted units are hard to kill, and yes sometimes it may feel like it is impossible to kill them (Two's horde of vet 3 commandos for example), but your grevious error comes in wrongly trying to associate hordes of vet 3 players with the completely seperate issue of playing opponents who are of a rank far higher than yours.

 How are these two issues seperate?

1. You assumed players with high ranks would have tons of vet 3 units. Wrongly. I have more experience according to the leader boards than anyone else, and I have only 1 vet unit, and I know several other people not far below me who are in a similar boat. Vet is not exclusively a factor of how many games you have played. Which leads to point 2...

 
2. You completely ignored the fact that there are people in this game with low ranks who have many vet 3 units. (within the first 2 days of 006 vet3keeps had about 5 vet 3 KCH). Gamesguy's "vet smurf account" was designed at first to gather vet, and he had racked up quite a few of them in only a very small handful of games.

3. There are players with extremely high ranks that have little or no vet units at all. I have 1 vet 3 unit, just 1. Obviously you didn't think about the fact that this mod community is far more intricate and diverse than it would be convenient for you to recognize. Stop making broad and generalized assumptions in order to try and rationalize your agenda.

 All of these glaring contradictions to your argument should have set off warning bells in your head, but either you refused to aknowledge this or you simply did not care.

So no, you do not get to argue that vet units are directly connected to a players rank as a means to explain why you lose against ranked up players. Because although ranked players have played more games with their current company than you have, as you know realize how many games a company has recorded is neither a reliable indicator of how much vet they may or might not have. For a player who is keenly focused on getting vet 3 units, a handful of games is all they need. Your flawed argument to the contrary was your first mistake.

 Your second, was this impotent remark:

So what if I gain 20 PPs in that game? I rather play 2 games which is more even, or go and play a noob stomp where I can win and get 20 PPs as well. The "reward" is minimal and pathetic.

  Don't want the 20 pps? Then don't play that damn particular game and leave the forums alone. Do not have the arrogance to assume that you speak for all, albeit it even a fraction, of the population of this mod. I know dozens of players on both allies and axis who demonstrate daily that they disagree strongly with your point here. They take the PP's and are glad for them, fearlessly joining games they know they will lose (based on win-loss ratio, not on rank) and say "whatever, I'm getting 20 pps!).

 20 pp's not a big enough reward for you? That's too bad, it really is, but stop whining. No one is forcing you to join games that you feel are unfair (of course not in terms of skill!), so if you think the 20 pp's is not enough reward that is entirely your choice. But do not, ever, make the false and absurd asumption that most people think like you do. The launcher proves it every single day: the current PP/XP reward system for playing higher ranked players has, does, and continues to be an effective means of incentivizing and rewarding lower ranked players for taking on opponents with more games under their company's belt. Don't like that simple fact? Then go shout at your screen the next time the launcher is open on it as you watch low rank players continually joining higher ranked players games and going "wow, 20 pp! sweet". It happens all the time, you won't have to wait long.

 Mistake three:

Maps should have a consistent design across the board, allowing room for both rural and urbanised fighting. This is because there are players who build their armies in a certain manner that benefits from playing specific maps. The idea is to give room for these armies to excel, by letting them think tactically where they should attack/defend etc to win, rather than to pick a map where they'll just win.

 Consistent design for maps across the board? Are you out of your damn mind? Yeah, wouldn't it be fun if every map had basically the same "design"? Wouldn't it just feel so realistic if every map had a 50/50 split of rural and urban? Who needs diversity in their playing field, and who wants to have to adapt to different locations and settings?

 Get over yourself. You do not get to decide, just because you hate playing on open maps like RTC, that every map in EiRR has to fit your standards for "fairness" to all companies. Seriously. If you are unable or unwilling to figure out how to make your company more versatile, then you have a grevious problem with your tactical mind.  What kind of company in the war would go "Um general, pick another commander to occupy normandy plz. The way I designed my company isn't good for open fields with long roads and the occasional hedgerow/building. They are way too OP for axis support weapons and 88's".

 Like really, wtf are you smoking? It's war, your gonna have to fight it in all kinds of terrain. Don't try and sterilize the maps (aka. ruin them with a "consistent design") for the rest of us just because you are too set in your ways to adapt your freaking company.

 Oh and if you don't like certain maps, make your own game in the launcher next time instead of joining someone else's. Joining other people's games is a luxury that only people who are able to adapt to all kinds of environmnets get to enjoy. Your apparently not one of those people, so now you know what you have to do instead.

 Ps. Also, don't think this means you can still join other people's games and then carry on and complain until they change the map to something you want. Host of the launcher game = host of the COH game (UNLESS they ask you to host instead). And the host decides. Don't join their game if you don't agree. Simple as that.

Mistake number four:

 

2. Do not reduce the benefits a high tiered player get from playing a game. If he wins, he should get about 10 PP, if he loses, he hsould get about 5PP. The point is to greatly increase the incentive for the newbie player. They should 5 PP/XP bonus per difference in level. i.e. a level 3 player face off against a level 1 player, they'll get a flat off 10 PP/XP bonus. If a level 5 face off against a level 1, they'll get a flat off 20PP/XP bonus on top of the normal winning & losing PP/XP gained.

 You know, I won't even say this one is a mistake. Instead I'll just say is unneccessary and unneeded. There is absoloutely no point in tinkering with the benefits a high players person gets from playing a game from what they are now. And as for "increasing the benefits a nebie player gets", we've gone over that already: if they dont like the benefits, they don't have to play those high ranked people. Many low ranked guys do like the benefits, and thats great for them. For those of them like you who don't feel they are enough, well, they can always play eachother.

 Don't fix what isn't broken. And don't try to make something that isn't broken look like it needs to be fixed.

Mistake five:

Increase availability of allied Snipers. I have ranted on this time and again. Allied snipers need to be increased to an availability of 2/1. This is mandatory because the superior amount of firepower the axis units can deal out requires an "instakill" "antivet" unit.

 What the hell is this? Somehow a post that started out being about the cujrrent PP/XP system somehow snaked its way into being a thinly veiled and contrived attempt to get your specific army buffed? It's almost like you sat down and thought, "hmm, how can I make my argument any less credible and applicable to the general population?"  To be honest when I first started reading your thread, even though I disagreed with just about everything you were saying, I gave you the credit that atleast some of your ideas kind of seemed like they had genuine concern for the system in a non-self benefitting way. Then I got to this point, and basically it was pretty obvious all your cards were now on the table and the jig was up.

 Basically what this argument shows is that you don't really care about the current system as it applies to "the new player". You care about how it applies to you, and only you. I see it all the time. People trying to hide their agenda with the guise of "balance" and "improving the system", but most times it just boils down to "i have been losing lately, and I need to blame the system/balance to justify losing". Just because you need to convince yourself you didn't lose because of skill, doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit through another ill-concieved attempt to tailor the game to your advantage every time you get beat badly.


 As for allies "requiring" 2 sniper availabillity, I find this as hilarious a suggestion as I would find it if an axis player were to come on here and say "axis need 2 sniper availability". Both suggestions are ludicris and unfounded in any reason, logic, or fact. Stop trying to manipulate the game to your liking. The fact that the leaderboards show a fairly even distribution of wins and losses (Us and Wehr have the exact same amount of negative win-loss ratio players in their top 20. They are tied for first in this regard) flies in the face of the threaare claim that allies or axis are weaker than the other.

 If you are losing over and over again, figure it out, compromise, try new things, and then try again. Claiming it's the "system!" and not you is not going to help you get anywhere.

5. Give offmaps to newb advantages, availability of only 1. This will allow a single chance at breakthrough. If they waste it, thats their problem. For allies this can come in offmap arty, for axis either in firestorm or in defensive rocket barrage. Or you can give it in another format by giving them consistent "arty support" by giving them 1 Hummel/Priest which can be called in at 5 popcap with normal abilities either with a longer cooldown, or as per normal.

 Yeah, so that the people who just keep resetting their companies so that they get 12 TP per game can take advantage of this too? Get real. EiRRmod had you pegged from the get go in his post, so do us all a favour and just stop pretending you don't have an agenda.

 

At the end of the day, I find no point in picking "even" games and playing with players of equal skill, losing tons of units to win the game, when at the end of the day, they just retreat their units, keep their vet. Lose the early games and win later when they've got vet.

 Thats your choice then. The reason I don't have more than 1 vet 3 unit is because I gladly lose tons of units to win the game. I am competitive that way, and the win means more to me than collecting experienced units. I play for the game.

 Maybe i'm just funny that way? Or maybe you need to grow up.

 

Buildings are now garrisonable, which will "revolutionise" your EiRR gameplay significantly again. It is time to re-look into the costs of everything now.

 No.

 
 In conclusion, please don't post this nonsense anymore. You don't know what is best for the mod (clearly), and frankly from what I read of your suggestions I don't think you even know what is best for yourself. So the next time you lose a game your not happy about losing, think long and hard before running to the forums to try and enforce your dissatisfaction on the rest of us. Because I will tell you straight up, we're not stupid. We can tell when a thread that parades around as a "concern for balance" is really just a venting thread about a game the author just lost and can't reconcile. Believe me, we can all tell.
 

[Sach]

I actually think the system is really good, the TP bonuses helped me compete and the extra PP meant I went from 1 to 4 in about a dozen games.

Now I rarely get the bonuses

So I would say it works perfect already.

[Unkn0wn]

Impressive post Boldas  .

[Smokaz]

Lol, mary. N1.

Anyways, I can't disagree with 31 about sniper availability being increased to 2. Nobody should have companies without sniper counters. PE has slow, acs, their own bikes and kettenkrads to deal with snipers. They are not the fat kid in the back of the bus when it comes to countering snipers. Brits are.

+1 to snipers being increased to 2

[Unkn0wn]

Make a separate thread for that, this is not the place to discuss sniper availability .

[Armandillo]

Mary why the hostility ? Do you think you get + points by attacking 31st in this manner ?

There's no way to get a bunch of vet 3 units in the first games unless you noobstomp. I have one vet 3 and it took me like 20+ games. What he says is true, playing much will reward you, and will reward you at the expense of equal skilled players that dont have much time to invest.
And now the difference is not much apparent, most tier abilities do not work. But later a t4 player with full advantages and decent vet, will have a huge advantage.

[31stPzGren]

The biggest problem with this post, right off the bat, is that it starts with a common, legitimate concern that can and sometimes does exist within the current mod (players with low ranks feeling unsatisfied with just the PP/XP bonus they get for playing much higher rank enemies), and then ludicrisly tries to exploit that relatively small problem (one that has a relatively easy solution) in order to try and manipulate changes that the author (Pzrgren) wants.

I'm point out several issues at once. Not just the flaws in the PP/XP system.

1. You assumed players with high ranks would have tons of vet 3 units. Wrongly. I have more experience according to the leader boards than anyone else, and I have only 1 vet unit, and I know several other people not far below me who are in a similar boat. Vet is not exclusively a factor of how many games you have played. Which leads to point 2...
 

Ranks give other benefits as well, such as doctrine unlocks, advantages for MP, Muni & Fuel. Players with higher ranks, also benefit from having played more games giving a higher chance of having more vet.

2. You completely ignored the fact that there are people in this game with low ranks who have many vet 3 units. (within the first 2 days of 006 vet3keeps had about 5 vet 3 KCH). Gamesguy's "vet smurf account" was designed at first to gather vet, and he had racked up quite a few of them in only a very small handful of games.
 

I didn't, I said reduce the benefits of veterancy. So read the post properly rather than writing for the sake of writing.

3. There are players with extremely high ranks that have little or no vet units at all. I have 1 vet 3 unit, just 1. Obviously you didn't think about the fact that this mod community is far more intricate and diverse than it would be convenient for you to recognize. Stop making broad and generalized assumptions in order to try and rationalize your agenda.
 

Ranks give other benefits as well. If you don't have any vet, thats your loss. I refer to players who have lots of vet. I'm addressing a specific issue here, everyone else, who are high ranked and have not vet, do not suffer any loss from the things I've advocated here.

All of these glaring contradictions to your argument should have set off warning bells in your head, but either you refused to aknowledge this or you simply did not care.

So no, you do not get to argue that vet units are directly connected to a players rank as a means to explain why you lose against ranked up players. Because although ranked players have played more games with their current company than you have, as you know realize how many games a company has recorded is neither a reliable indicator of how much vet they may or might not have. For a player who is keenly focused on getting vet 3 units, a handful of games is all they need. Your flawed argument to the contrary was your first mistake.

Statistically speaking, higher rank = higher chance of vet 3. Its as simple as that. I've addressed all your points I don't see how they are glaring contradictions. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought otherwise. You have your own POV, I have my own POV.

Don't want the 20 pps? Then don't play that damn particular game and leave the forums alone. Do not have the arrogance to assume that you speak for all, albeit it even a fraction, of the population of this mod. I know dozens of players on both allies and axis who demonstrate daily that they disagree strongly with your point here. They take the PP's and are glad for them, fearlessly joining games they know they will lose (based on win-loss ratio, not on rank) and say "whatever, I'm getting 20 pps!).

 20 pp's not a big enough reward for you? That's too bad, it really is, but stop whining. No one is forcing you to join games that you feel are unfair (of course not in terms of skill!), so if you think the 20 pp's is not enough reward that is entirely your choice. But do not, ever, make the false and absurd asumption that most people think like you do. The launcher proves it every single day: the current PP/XP reward system for playing higher ranked players has, does, and continues to be an effective means of incentivizing and rewarding lower ranked players for taking on opponents with more games under their company's belt. Don't like that simple fact? Then go shout at your screen the next time the launcher is open on it as you watch low rank players continually joining higher ranked players games and going "wow, 20 pp! sweet". It happens all the time, you won't have to wait long.

Well, wait and see then. You're taking a short term view to things. I won't bother arguing with you.

Consistent design for maps across the board? Are you out of your damn mind? Yeah, wouldn't it be fun if every map had basically the same "design"? Wouldn't it just feel so realistic if every map had a 50/50 split of rural and urban? Who needs diversity in their playing field, and who wants to have to adapt to different locations and settings?

 Get over yourself. You do not get to decide, just because you hate playing on open maps like RTC, that every map in EiRR has to fit your standards for "fairness" to all companies. Seriously. If you are unable or unwilling to figure out how to make your company more versatile, then you have a grevious problem with your tactical mind.  What kind of company in the war would go "Um general, pick another commander to occupy normandy plz. The way I designed my company isn't good for open fields with long roads and the occasional hedgerow/building. They are way too OP for axis support weapons and 88's".

 Like really, wtf are you smoking? It's war, your gonna have to fight it in all kinds of terrain. Don't try and sterilize the maps (aka. ruin them with a "consistent design") for the rest of us just because you are too set in your ways to adapt your freaking company.

 Oh and if you don't like certain maps, make your own game in the launcher next time instead of joining someone else's. Joining other people's games is a luxury that only people who are able to adapt to all kinds of environmnets get to enjoy. Your apparently not one of those people, so now you know what you have to do instead.

 Ps. Also, don't think this means you can still join other people's games and then carry on and complain until they change the map to something you want. Host of the launcher game = host of the COH game (UNLESS they ask you to host instead). And the host decides. Don't join their game if you don't agree. Simple as that.

You can't be more wrong for what I advocate for a good spit in rural and urban environment.

1. You don't have experience in map design.
2. Most maps are designed with similar concepts. You definitely didn't notice.
3. Rural and Urban environment allows different tactics to adapt. You want diversity in gameplay, rather than same gimmicky repetitive silly units, change the maps a little.
4. We have to play in all terrains... precisely. So why are some people playing only maps of a specific type? I'm refering to these type of people. Please think before you post.
5. How do you know what maps people are going to host before game starts? Seriously, learn a thing or two about how a game is done in EiRR. Being the host of the game MEANS NOTHING in EiRR.

You know, I won't even say this one is a mistake. Instead I'll just say is unneccessary and unneeded. There is absoloutely no point in tinkering with the benefits a high players person gets from playing a game from what they are now. And as for "increasing the benefits a nebie player gets", we've gone over that already: if they dont like the benefits, they don't have to play those high ranked people. Many low ranked guys do like the benefits, and thats great for them. For those of them like you who don't feel they are enough, well, they can always play eachother.

 Don't fix what isn't broken. And don't try to make something that isn't broken look like it needs to be fixed.

You balance both side of the games. Newbies should get bonuses but top players should not be unnecessarily sidelined. Learn to see both sides of the coin.

What the hell is this? Somehow a post that started out being about the cujrrent PP/XP system somehow snaked its way into being a thinly veiled and contrived attempt to get your specific army buffed? It's almost like you sat down and thought, "hmm, how can I make my argument any less credible and applicable to the general population?"  To be honest when I first started reading your thread, even though I disagreed with just about everything you were saying, I gave you the credit that atleast some of your ideas kind of seemed like they had genuine concern for the system in a non-self benefitting way. Then I got to this point, and basically it was pretty obvious all your cards were now on the table and the jig was up.

 Basically what this argument shows is that you don't really care about the current system as it applies to "the new player". You care about how it applies to you, and only you. I see it all the time. People trying to hide their agenda with the guise of "balance" and "improving the system", but most times it just boils down to "i have been losing lately, and I need to blame the system/balance to justify losing". Just because you need to convince yourself you didn't lose because of skill, doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit through another ill-concieved attempt to tailor the game to your advantage every time you get beat badly.

So far, all your content revolves around personal attacks rather than addressing things properly. All I've advocated so far, are possibilities to improve the current state of play rather than to tailor it to my own play style.

And since you've brought up this bullshit about tailoring the game to "my own playstyle" I'm just going to state that there are some PEOPLE out there who are genuinely are tailoring the game to their own playstyle because they couldn't compete competitively back then.

If you are losing over and over again, figure it out, compromise, try new things, and then try again. Claiming it's the "system!" and not you is not going to help you get anywhere.

I don't make unnecessary posts about how the game is like, unless I've observed the trend repeatedly.

Yeah, so that the people who just keep resetting their companies so that they get 12 TP per game can take advantage of this too? Get real. EiRRmod had you pegged from the get go in his post, so do us all a favour and just stop pretending you don't have an agenda.

You didn't even read what I continue to post to address what EiRRmod has said. Why don't you check the stats about how often I wipe my accounts? You don't know a single damn thing and you talk a whole load of bullshit.

In conclusion, please don't post this nonsense anymore. You don't know what is best for the mod (clearly), and frankly from what I read of your suggestions I don't think you even know what is best for yourself. So the next time you lose a game your not happy about losing, think long and hard before running to the forums to try and enforce your dissatisfaction on the rest of us. Because I will tell you straight up, we're not stupid. We can tell when a thread that parades around as a "concern for balance" is really just a venting thread about a game the author just lost and can't reconcile. Believe me, we can all tell.

Well, obviously you're wrong.

Learn to write your post properly the next time round instead of writing irrelevant items..

[31stPzGren]

As I final note, I like to say that, your rebuttal revolves around accusing me of an agenda which I do not possess and  because I possess this imaginary "agenda" my points are therefore invalid.

Its a fantastic strategy for discrediting opposing views but nowhere addressing the actual problems at hand.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I'm point out several issues at once. Not just the flaws in the PP/XP system.

 Unfortunately, your thread is called "Flaws in the PP/XP "Bonus" System. If you disagree with the name YOU gave your own thread, then thats a problem your going to have to sort out with yourself.

 Until then, you don't get to be all pissed off when someone accurately states that the main point of your thread was to point out "Flaws in the PP/XP 'bonus" system". Simple as that.

 

Ranks give other benefits as well, such as doctrine unlocks, advantages for MP, Muni & Fuel. Players with higher ranks, also benefit from having played more games giving a higher chance of having more vet.

 Because they play more games they should be penalised? Please, for the love of god figure out what you want to complain about here. Are you complaining about the system that rewards lower rank people for playing higher rank people, or are you complaining that the amount of games someone plays with the same company gets them advantages? If it's the latter I have bad news for you: you are playing the wrong mod.

 You need to seriously reconsider your approach here if you cannot reconcile the simple fact that playing more games is going to make someone stronger in a mod that specifically has been geared towards an MMO feel. If you played WoW or any other MMORPG, would you whine and complain when your level 1 character kept getting beaten by a level 100 one? No, you wouldn't.

 Now you may disagree with the direction the mod is headed to, and that is your choice, but that makes your argument one that is fundamentally against doctrine abillities etc. altogether. Because as long as PP is used to unlock abillities, units, and off maps, players with more games are going to have stronger companies than those with fewer games. That is why the current system is tailored so that high ranked people are encouraged to play with people their own rank, and so that low rank people get rewarded slightly for playing higher ranked people. Nowhere, anywhere, is it written that all kinds of perks and goodies are supposed to make a rank 1 fighting a rank 8 perfectly even. Because if that were so, why would anyone waste the time and effort ranking up when it didnt make them any stronger than someone who just kept resetting their company every 3 games? Hell, all we would end up with were just a bunch of players with 2 wins and 2 losses and 1 draw after almost two weeks of playing the mod (who could I be talking about??).

 Think carefully, because of the two of us only one person seems to actually be reading what you wrote and remembering it. Hint: it's not you.

I didn't, I said reduce the benefits of veterancy. So read the post properly rather than writing for the sake of writing.

 Your post begins within the context of your dissatisfaction at playing a player with a higher rank than you, and even now just moments ago you bemoaned about all the advantages people with more games get: abillities, MP/Muni/Fuel, higher chance of vet, etc. So no, you don't get to pick and choose what you want your argument to have been in retrospect. Your words are right there on the screen to see, and it is those words that I am using against you. If you don't like what you wrote, like I said, take it up with yourself. Until then, don't try to dodge or duck when someone calls you out on something you said that was unfounded and erroneous.

 As for "writing for the sake of writing", well, I like to think of it more as "writing for the sake of preventing one more person with a chip on their shoulder after losing a game from filling up the forums with their thinly-veiled agenda masqeurading as "suggestions" on how to make it easier for them to win".

 Different interpretations I guess.

Ranks give other benefits as well. If you don't have any vet, thats your loss. I refer to players who have lots of vet. I'm addressing a specific issue here, everyone else, who are high ranked and have not vet, do not suffer any loss from the things I've advocated here.

I don't have vet, and yet you don't see my crying about those who do. Why not? Because everyone has equal opportunity to get vet units. Those who do have tons of them played in the same mod I did, with the same version, with access to the same players I do. They had the same choice in armies, doctrines, and opponents that I did. Why should I have a right to penalize their vet units just because I am unable or unwilling to work for them? Do I get to impose my wishes on them?

 No. Your argument is based on selfishness. You believe that just because vet units make other people stronger, that the strength of their vet units should be toned down. But you don't want to recognize that everyone gets the same opportunities to gather vet units, but it's just that some people put more effort and a higher priority on doing so. Many of them have worked hard to get those vet units,  but that doesn't matter to you. Nerfing vet units would benefit you.

 The funny difference between you and I, is that I take responsibillity for my choice not to gather lots of vet units. I'm too competitive and I can't stand letting that 5% health sherman escape from the firefight so it can go repair and come back later... even if it means risking my vet tank busters or my half dead marder. But I also know that doing so is my choice about my personal style of play, and that others would rather save their vet unit for another day and risk fighting the sherman later in the same battle (when they might not have a means to counter it). Does that give me the right to try and penalise them for doing so?

 No. And it damn well doesn't give you that right either.

Statistically speaking, higher rank = higher chance of vet 3. Its as simple as that. I've addressed all your points I don't see how they are glaring contradictions. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought otherwise. You have your own POV, I have my own POV.

 The difference between my point of view and yours, is that I'm not using my opinion to try and engineer changes to my liking - especially not at the expense of people who have worked hard and played alot of games to get the advantages they now enjoy.

 As for statistically speaking, AGAIN just because higher ranked people "may" have more vet 3, does not mean they should be penalized for playing more games than others. You cannot make the "its not fair, I can't play as much as Mr. X" argument because it is fundamentally opposed to the MMO feel of the mod itself. Thats what persistence mods are, ones that reward persistence.

 Look up the term in the dictionary.

Well, wait and see then. You're taking a short term view to things. I won't bother arguing with you.

 I'd rather take a short term view of things than an imaginary one. My argument was founded in actual evidence that occurs regularly in the launcher. Yours is entirely hypothetical and is based on what you think will happen. One argument is credible, the other is not.

You can't be more wrong for what I advocate for a good spit in rural and urban environment.

1. You don't have experience in map design.
2. Most maps are designed with similar concepts. You definitely didn't notice.
3. Rural and Urban environment allows different tactics to adapt. You want diversity in gameplay, rather than same gimmicky repetitive silly units, change the maps a little.
4. We have to play in all terrains... precisely. So why are some people playing only maps of a specific type? I'm refering to these type of people. Please think before you post.
5. How do you know what maps people are going to host before game starts? Seriously, learn a thing or two about how a game is done in EiRR. Being the host of the game MEANS NOTHING in EiRR.

1. Wrong. I'm sorry, were you under the impression you had any familiarity with my background? Sorry for your confusion.
2. Wrong. Some maps are designed with an equal amount of urban and rural settings. This does nothing to suggest that ALL maps should be designed with this in mind, as you demanded they should be. Nuenen, Church, Abbeville, Tanteville, Montherme, Bedum, Angoville, Wrecked Train, Authie, Arras, Angoville, Lyon, Vire River Valley, Montargis, Viking Grave... the list goes on and on. Each of these maps has an uneven split between the two settings. Just for fun I included vcoh and EiRR maps so that you can make no mistake: cleanly and evenly splitting between the two is neither a prequisite, or an indication of a good map. You were and remain soundly wrong.
3. Right, but not an argument that has been brought up for or against you. Believe me, you have enough points to defend without adding imaginary ones to the pile aswell.
4. Because they have the right to play on whatever maps they choose. This is a game, and if people enjoy playing on their favorite maps over and over, you are going to have to learn to deal with it. Don't like the maps a certain player plays on? Boo hoo, play someone else. But make no mistake, you have absolutely no right to force your particular opinion on what makes a good map upon them. That is arrogance, that is idiocy, and that is unacceptable.
5. If maps mean so much to you, here is a helpful tip. Before you join a game next time, ask the host "hey, what map are you planning on playing?". Don't like the answer? Don't join. Thats how you know what map it's going to be. You just made it out like there is no way to know what map is going to be played while in the launcher, and in 1 sentence I showed you an easy way to figure it out. You may think you "know how things are done in EiRR", but your elitism has somehow made you think that adapting is imposssible. For most people, map selection isn't a big deal, so for the majority of EIRR games this isn't neccesary. But obviously you are one of the few who has issues with map selection, so for you special action is neccesary. Learn to adapt.

You balance both side of the games. Newbies should get bonuses but top players should not be unnecessarily sidelined. Learn to see both sides of the coin.

 Newbies do get bonuses at the moment, and top players are not being unneccesarrily sidelined.

All I've advocated so far, are possibilities to improve the current state of play rather than to tailor it to my own play style.

And since you've brought up this bullshit about tailoring the game to "my own playstyle" I'm just going to state that there are some PEOPLE out there who are genuinely are tailoring the game to their own playstyle because they couldn't compete competitively back then.

  You've advocating improving your current state of play based on how you would like to see it. Your post did nothing to aknowledge that your opinion was extremely biased and loaded, but rather tried to pass it all off as if there were universal problems with the current state of play... which there is not.  The problem with your post, as I see it, was the outright arrogance of it, and the obvious maneuvering to have changes implemented that would benefit your specific playstyle. The sniper was an important one, but also the nerfs on vet units. You love using snipers, and you don't have a lot of vet units. See where the conflict of interest is?

 Like I said, the people who read your posts aren't stupid. Don't fool yourself into thinking they are, and then wonder why they call you out on your BS.

I don't make unnecessary posts about how the game is like, unless I've observed the trend repeatedly.

 I gave you a clear example of things that actually are happening repeteadly, and your response was "your just looking at the short term". See the problem? You are using yourself as 100% of your focus group, and your own feelings as evidence and proof. Unfortunately, and as the other responses in this thread have proven, you are for the most part alone in your "observations".

 Like I said, your opinion is your own. Great. But do not make the mistake of convincing yourself that just because you think something... it is true. Look around first.

You didn't even read what I continue to post to address what EiRRmod has said. Why don't you check the stats about how often I wipe my accounts? You don't know a single damn thing and you talk a whole load of bullshit.

 Don't you hate it when people assume they know things about you? It's frustrating isnt it? I mean, wouldn't it just bother you to hell if someone acted like they knew you had no background in map making even though they had no idea?

 Kudos to you for having the guts to call people out on those kinds of shenanigans. I can tell you don't put up with people who do stuff like that.

 But back to the point, EiRR mod was right and you don't have a leg to stand on. Your current american profile has 5 games total on it. Hell, I know i've played you more than 5 times myself in 006 while you were americans. Busted.

 You have reset your company, and more than once this version. Now I made no claim as to your motivations for doing so, but the fact of the matter is that you have. EiRRmod was perfectly justified for bringing that simple fact up in his post, and he had a really good point: 90% of the changes you suggested, would unfairly benefit people who reset their companies often. He did not say you were abusing the system, or that you were resetting your company only to reap those kinds of benefits, but he did say that you (intentionally or not) would benefit unfairly from the very changes you proposed.

 He had you pegged with that argument. Right on the head.

Well, obviously you're wrong.

Learn to write your post properly the next time round instead of writing irrelevant items..

  One of us has used clear arguments with specific examples and reasoning. Things may seem "obvious" or "irrelevant" to you, but sadly that does not make them so.

 -Wind

[TheWindCriesMary]

 One more post to adress your recent addition to the thread while I was typing:

As I final note, I like to say that, your rebuttal revolves around accusing me of an agenda which I do not possess and  because I possess this imaginary "agenda" my points are therefore invalid.

Its a fantastic strategy for discrediting opposing views but nowhere addressing the actual problems at hand.

 Fortunatelly for me, I based my argument on the lapses in logic and reason of your post and treated my accusations of your "agenda" merely as an incidental luxury.  

 Think of it as if I were building a logic house.

 The important things were constructed out of dismantling your erroneously illogical statements (Ie. High rank gives an unfair advantage over low rank in an MMORPG'ish mod). These things would include walls, the foundation, the roof, etc. They are the integral, objective part of the argument that would be just as valid no matter who the target for rebuttal was. This is the meaty part of the rebuttal.

 Now the incidental things, like me taking issue with your personal approach to your argument (aka. These things are WRONG and they need to be fixed now because I know what I'm talking about [even though you clearly did not]), are the decorations of this house. Things like curtains, wallpaper, flowers in the garden, etc. These things are not integral to the structural... well, integrity.. of the house, but rather are just little extras that help embellish the whole affect.

 So when I call you out on having an agenda, and about being arrogant in the way you blatantly ignore the fact that your opinions are simply opinions and not fact... do not make the mistake of believing that is my argument. Sure I may believe that you are woefully inept at thinking and writing logically, but saying so alone would not help when it came to disproving your suggestions. What it is, is my personal opinion floating in the periphery. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they cannot be used as objective arguments per say. Thats why I didnt use my personal opinions about your post as my foundation. I hope that clears up your confusion.

 Thanks,
-Wind

 

[Nevyen]

I think in long cold light of day the preposition that something is flawed, is mute. All concepts are inevitably flawed for one reason or another.  The characteristic of any system is that it cannot be perfect, but at what point do you move past that and start to genuinely look for ways to add.
I think the worst flaw our system has is the assumption of playing in the "spirit" of the game as opposed to "gaminess" conduct. Its not easy to stay one step ahead of those who seek to destabilise and or corrupt the system.

If I was to think of the volumes of  threads that have been written on the effectiveness or lack there off of each MMO system out there, especially WoW and the casual player vs grinder debate or the solo experience vs the guild, or the farmer vs the player we could go on and on and on and on.
Here is the thing, all those systems rely on one key thing, games played in the intent and spirit of the game.  

It’s one to point out the elements of failure but there a few things I would say to suggest that we are moving towards a good system with good intent.

In the past the nature of games was that we waited and waited and waited,  now i log on and find at at most at least 3 -4 games in progress or being created.  
Additionally people are willing to play.

To the terms of the nature of playing against other players who are higher level.  This also has allot to do with the way players conduct themselves when they lose and or win.  Too often we as a playing group and I’ll admit in the past I’ve been like this as well we all seem to act without thought of consequence and or in a selfish manner.
We lose and we feel affronted and annoyed, we win and we feel vindicated and sublime in our taunts.

This is the core issue, no system can effectively change that, no xp gain, no level system can ultimately change the way we interact.  We all seem to focus on the person rather than the issue, and all seem to push a specific agenda, intended or not.

I would like to see players conduct themselves like people such as Osprey or even at times Salan who view the contest not such much the result. They revel in the game in and off itself and not seek to intimidate and or navigate either through subversion of argument or via game tactics other players.

I guess online gaming has this issue where as table top gaming does not.  You find the personal and physical presence of the other players asks you, maybe even requires you be civil, enjoy the game for that purpose alone and realise that you do this for the purpose of having fun and nothing else.
In all we the development team where given a brief by EIRRMOD with specific parameters in which to create a system that will align with his overall design concept. We have thus far been developing all systems with an ultimate goal to complement a grander scheme.  

We have been through several pricing and doctrine designs and we are currently and firmly placed on developing all those doctrines you see in the launcher.
We as a team are very happy with the current environment and are happy to see a large number of games being played as well people enjoying what has been produced.

In closing and conclusion I find that the product as it is stand the judgement of the community, seeing as we have a good volume of games being played and find via feedback and discussion people are enjoying themselves.

As I even look  now we have 4 games in play a 5th in creation and 23 players in the launcher. I don’t have the SQL numbers for the number of active companies and accounts.  
I thank everyone for their feedback its a source for allot of us in seeing what you all think and from the collective posts we gain a grander experience.  

Of course I try to make this statement not so much as broad statement but on the experience of being involved in this mod now for 2 and half years.  Of knowing and playing with community members for that long and knowing what we have been and the target we are aiming for. With that perspective on the nature of the game play and nearly over 900 games of eir alone, not vcoh not comp stomps but this mod alone I personally think we have made a definitive in-road into making this game fun and with the right spirit.

That aside flawd or not the system will stay this way though I thank you for the feedback and the statements.  

Oh and for now sniper availability will stay where it is.

Best Regards
Nevyen

[31stPzGren]

Thanks for the reply Nevyen.

To the people out there, I wish you all the best in enjoying the new EiRR.