Knight's Cross Holders [Gone] lost in the forest?

[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

[Duckordie]

We had a game, Gameid:20

I retreted Knight's Cross Holders. I had 2 of em
as you can se on the film. But when i logged on, they where lost totaly like they did die, but they did not.

I sould have 2 but only have one

[attachment deleted by admin]

[B4_life]

retreating units have a 15% chance to get sucked in a black hole.

[fldash]

You lost the battle correct?

[Duckordie]

Yeah. thot that ability was not on yet

Honestly, what will kill em when they redraw?
The huge bunny of evil?
Like Hey! My Tiger got Eaten by some saveges

[fldash]

It's war.  When retreating, many troops never made it back... MIA, KIA, or AWOL.  You name it.

[Duckordie]

I do agree if a play comes and attack you or some thing like that
but not like let tip a dice and se ho will die...
It sould be like, the lates retreats have a bigger chans of dieing bec they are longer back or that,

Bec now you only whant to play a game you  are SURE to win, or ells you will lose to much...
Vote? See what othere people think

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

this stops mutipul game being played if you lose. and both the people who lost are at minius 1000mp in my last game so the next day they might not even get to 0mp.

[Jazlizard]

Well lets not use real life arguments to justify game mechanics eh? Losing random units is just silly, at worst you should only potentially lose units that actually hit the field and retreated. There are times when it's just plain suicide to deploy your armor (i.e your opponent as a ton of AT) and losing it even though you didn't deply it is just silly.

I'm all about balance and motivation to win, but once the map goes in losses will matter there as well. I think some sort of reinforce penalty should be added instead of this.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

everybody wants to win: getting game is a challenge in its self sometimes so people want a game thats worth it, people want vet and CPs so they still push to win and they also just want to be able to "I won!"

no one playes to lose anyway, even when im facing lai i try my best and if i punshed for that then it is not fun.

[Jazlizard]

Well part of my point is that at least part of winning and losing will involve the actual war map. Assuming controling territories actually matter for something in the overall scheme of things, losing already has several things going against it.

I'm perfectly fine with a monetary penalty of some kind, but losing units, especially at random, is just silly.

[fldash]

The 'map' is not scheduled for some time.  Right now, everything is based off how many territories each side owns.  This piece is already active.  Both sides start with 100 territories, winning gains you more, which in turn gain you more resources.

You're right, it is all about balance and motivation to win.  In our old system, players weren't motivated to win.  They were retreating units off and keeping them for battles.  You weren't being punished for bad or irresponsible play, now you are.  You act like you are losing 50% of your units (what some of us originally wanted).  IT'S 15%.  If it makes you feel better, pretend you didn't hit that retreat button in time...

Like I said, it's not going anywhere.  At least not until it's given a full chance, so you can bitch all you want.  But it's staying because when and if it's removed, it requires another wipe of the database and I don't want to get into a habit of doing that too often...

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

no one iv spoke to is for this anymore, everybody has motivation to win other wise they wouldn't be playing, b4 people gladly went into fights that they knew they would have a hard time wining and tryed as hard as they could so they would have fun, now the new players wouldn't dare going up vs the better ones since they know its not worth it.

[Jazlizard]

Whoever wanted it to be 50% has no concept of fun aparently, that would just destroy your company unless resources per turn were increased dramaticly.

Why can't you just charge the loser like 15% of his total force as a resource charge? Either that or make reinforcing cost a lot more then it does.

It seems the problem you have is not penalizing folks for winning or losing, but with folks retreating units just to retain veterancy.

[Ucross]

Well lets not use real life arguments to justify game mechanics eh? Losing random units is just silly, at worst you should only potentially lose units that actually hit the field and retreated. There are times when it's just plain suicide to deploy your armor (i.e your opponent as a ton of AT) and losing it even though you didn't deply it is just silly.

Silly as in unrealistic?  You guys think when companies retreated they opposition was like, "OK, go away and re-set up? We'll let you go".   Or how about silly as in gameplay, where everyone right now is trying to horde their best units, keep them alive, even at the cost of losing a game because frankly they don't really care if they win or lose, as long as their company is still alive.   For realism and for gameplay you lose troops and exp when you retreat.

I'm all about balance and motivation to win, but once the map goes in losses will matter there as well. I think some sort of reinforce penalty should be added instead of this.

That's possible, we'll definitely discuss it.

[Jazlizard]

I'm just saying that arguing that something is being added for the sake of 'realism' with no regards to gameplay is silly. If you want to add a real life example to something that actually works well go for it.

The problem isn't with winning or losing, the winner still gets away with the retreating 'cheese' as I'll now call it, so that doesn't fix much.

The problem you guys seem to want to address is retreating units. This should be addressed on both sides if it's deemed a problem and not only the loser.

[fldash]

This has nothing to do with realism, but we can justify it that way.  This is all about gameplay.

[Jazlizard]

I'm cool with that, I just think it's going to totally mess things up.

I'm going to test whatever you throw at me fldash, but I really think this is a terrible idea and not addressing the problem fairly and really only penalizing the loser for saving his units.

Fighting to the last man is currently not a viable option if you want that company to be useful for anything again.

[Ucross]

If fighting to the lsat man is not a viable option than we better damn well make it one, as it's the best gameplay we have. 

[Jazlizard]

You might as well not have veterancy then, and persistency will be short lived as soon most folks companies will be anihilated after only a few losses, might as well play anihilation vCoH if you want fighting to the last man everytime.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

people fight hard, of course they do, but fighting to the lat man were you know you cannot win and giving the enemy XP is a bit silly for a game mechanic.