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.
You're the only person saying this.
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.
If EiRR is about leveling up all the way, so you don't have to use skill to win eventually, then I can't dispute that.
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.
There's no agenda, like I've said apart from another which you choose not to accept.
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.
You are coming from a perspective, where you did not see the development of the game from old eir to the current eirr, so you don't know what I'm talking about. Veterancy makes a persistent game fun, and provides some benefits. There are however, a difference when veterancy starts to override game mechanics, like what some people like to talk about last time, about units being immune to suppression.
In a tight game, veterancy is always hard to achieve, like what you said. I refer to veterancy being gained from selectively stomping noobs, which isn't hard to do.
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.
When anyone post an opinion of any sort, its always about whether they like it, or not. That probably sums up all balance arguments. If a person "worked hard" and "played a lot of games" they should be good enough to win games already, why add vet and all these other things.
Anyway, like you said, if persistence mods are about rewarding that, then I can't argue much, let it be then.
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.
I've made points before, which were proven true eventually. There were lots of people like yourself who claimed these points irrelevant. If hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant, then I suppose we should take out all higher managements in the world, because they all function on the concepts of "foresight" and predicting things before they happen.
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.
1. If your map design experience is sufficient, you would have understood the points listed.
2. Angonville is an excellent example of a "favourite" 1v1 map, which has an "open" side and a "semi-urbanised" side.
4. Favourite maps, favourite army, favourite play style. I'm talking about diversity here.
5. Do you ever ask the host what map they plan on playing?
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.
Actually, you're about the only person who're posting this and constantly suggesting that I've an agenda and that it is to benefit my own specific play style. If more than anything else, I like to advocate a freedom of play style, up to everyone to decide how they want to play, like in old EiRR where there was no availability.
It is just as valid to say that people who wanted availability had an agenda, that they wanted everyone else to play like them and have limited amounts of everything else.
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.
Likewise, your opinion is your own, so are that of others. There are people who reflect my opinion, its whether they post or not... or rather that they have left the community already.
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.
I've designed a map for this mod, you haven't. That's good enough evidence for me.
I actually have 2 american profiles for your information. The 5 games profile, is the inf doctrine which I don't play much and the other is the AB doctrine, which I actually have over 30 games. Add to the recent wipe cause of the new update?
I actually play MORE games on my american profiles than my wehr profiles and I haven't wiped my account at all during the most recent update.
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
Your points are reasonable to yourself, my points are reasonable to myself. All you're saying this far, is that I am wrong and that you're always right.
