Getting level 8's to play each other or even teams to play each other

[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

[Smokaz]

I had a discussion with scrapking today, and we both thought it would be idea to implement something to make it more beneficial and tempting for level 8 players to get together and play against each other. By level 8 everyone should have some doctrine abiltiies, a kind of build going and aims for their company even if it not completed. Indirectly this could help alleviate the desire to smurf just to get a game at all if high level of play causes other players to avoid you, and also help incite the übercompany commanders to stomp each other instead of the "lower officers".

What I propose is that next patch, The launcher recognizes if all the players in the game are the same team level it grants +5 pps for the entire team and if all of them are level 8 it grants +10pps for everyone participating.

[wildsolus]

interesting idea, would get even more strafing/bombing/recon runs since it'd be 20 pp a game if all level 8's. B)

[Jazlizard]

The problem with this is level doesn't really have to do anything with skill. The system needs to go off something more then just games played, a combination of games played and W/L ratio or something would be a better judge of how balanced a game is.

[RubixCubed]

its really ironic that smokaz made this thread.

[salan]

this isn't about balanced gameplay jaz, this is about company layout comparably to other companies and would be based directly on games played, as that dictates directly what level your company is.   not if you win all your games or not.  That more dictates your unit vet...

Its an interesting idea, I wonder if it would work or not, and how it would impact our PP sink at end game..

[wildsolus]

end game pp sink is weird.

on my airborne account i'm buying 5-6 sp for 10 pp

on my armour account i'm still buying 15-20 sp for 10pp.


really hurts my ability to strike fear with bombing/strafing when i can't afford them but i love triple field repairs B)

[Tymathee]

Yea, I kinda like the idea, especially since as you get higher level, it's hard to get PP because of lower levels coming in to play against you. One thing I'd like is if there were a base level that everyone would get but if you're a lower level than someone you're playing against, you get extra pp, this way you aren't penalizing someone with an 8 having to be forced to play with someone lower than you cuz no one's on in the dead of night (or early morning in europe and afternoon wherever)

I also think that it would be nice to have a system that kept track of who you have played against and the level they were so that you can look this up.

Also, one thing I forgot to mention. Back in the old school days you could look and see what doctrine someone picked by going into the browser chat and seeing who they were. Maybe you can put on the leaderboard what someone's doc is or something that shows the doctrines we choose, it'd be nice to know if i'm about to play 3 blitz players so i can buy some jeeps for storms or if i'm about ot play some falls so i can bring some extra AI.

[scrapking]

Skill factors into it to be sure, but the point is that the high skill players wouldn't feel like they had to smurf and sell their firstborn to be able to play.

We need to 1) Discourage smurfing by offering genuinely beneficial alternatives, and 2)  Encourage lesser players to play in unbalanced games, again, via genuinely beneficial alternatives.

It would still eventually create situations where high-skill, highly developed players play low-skill, highly developed...  as well as high-skill, new battalions against low skill, new battalions.

What we need, really, is a unified, singular player account which itself is tracked for purposes of player rating, and then various incentives to encourage higher skill players to either play each other, or with lesser skill players.  Combined with the above, from a battalion development perspective.

[Malevolence]

its really ironic that smokaz made this thread.

More like fitting. His ass couldn't get a game to save his life, and neither can most other "pro" level 8s...

[salan]

end game pp sink is weird.

on my airborne account i'm buying 5-6 sp for 10 pp

on my armour account i'm still buying 15-20 sp for 10pp.


really hurts my ability to strike fear with bombing/strafing when i can't afford them but i love triple field repairs B)

it will be the same for armor soon enough, all companies will have somewhere around the same amount of advantages they have available to them once we are done.

[CrazyWR]

has nothing to do with the amount of advantages, it has to do with the fact that his airborne account is full of vet and his armor company not as much...so its cheaper for him to buy SP.

[jackmccrack]

We should get +reroll chance when playing against higher levels.

[Jazlizard]

The thing is, there isn't really anything discouraging level 8's from playing against each other, in fact the system penalizes them (with less PPs) for playing lower level players.

My terror account has like 200 extra PP floating around, and I buy extra offmaps and crap pretty regularly. I don't see how folks blow through all their PP's on a constant basis unless they are just stomping low levels, oversupplying, and buying offmaps. The only games I generally see people avoid is against folks with high W/L ratios.

If it isn't about encouraging more balanced gameplay, then I don't see the point of it, that's really the biggest complaint with the system.

Also since winning makes you rank faster (twice as fast as losing) it doesn't work anyways, in fact it just helps better players earn more even faster then they do, as you can get to level 8 with near the minimum amount of games to make it and then get extra PPs just for playing folks of the same rank, but not of the same skill.

Again people avoid players who are good way more often then just rank, this doesn't really help accomplish anything but give out more PPs.

[Smokaz]

That's not right,  if you win a lot of games on a new account you basically fuck yourself. Grenadierapple 20-2 was raised from level 1 and he can barely buy anything, in fact I have to start saving up for my T4 10 games in advance because of winning games making me level up so fast.

Currently a 20 xp level 7 account, with 20 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws, I have been able to equip with the following in terms of spent pp:

Level 2 Manpower and munitions advantage. = 120 Pps

150 pps in doctrinal stuff, two t1s, two t2s. Floating 44 pps saving for my T4.

A total of 25 games have i played on the account.  That nets me at a little above 12 pps for each game. Which means I have been playing higher level accounts all my games.

Now if I get so few pps going against as many high level players as possible, AND winning, what happens to other playes ranking up, playing a few players below their level and gaining less PPs, but still winning?
Or the guys playing tons of games vs high level accounts, and winning? They get more pps, goddammit.

Conlusion: Winning sux

Losing owns

[Glaze]

Conlusion: Winning sux

Losing owns

Hrm, I guess I've been doing better than I thought!  Yay me!

[Mysthalin]

The system forbids new players to win - not only because the other players have loads of doctrine abilities and stuff, but because winning punishes you in giving you way less PP than you would gain in the same ammount of lost games.

[MistenTHA]

Conlusion: Winning sux

Losing owns

After coming back to EiR after a long hiatus, this is my conclusion as well. Losing allows me to stay at a lower rank longer and maximise PP gain. I can take the loss of pride at losing until my company is finally built to strength to start owning with. Not to mention that most of the time you will be losing against vetted, completed companies anyway.

But if one wins against the odds, there ought to be a payoff too as a reward other than getting extra XP, which most of the time, is detrimental anyway.

[Unkn0wn]

winning punishes you in giving you way less PP than you would gain in the same ammount of lost games.

You get a set amount of PPs regardless of win/loss. You must be talking about XP.

[Two]

Conlusion: Winning sux

Losing owns

After coming back to EiR after a long hiatus, this is my conclusion as well. Losing allows me to stay at a lower rank longer and maximise PP gain. I can take the loss of pride at losing until my company is finally built to strength to start owning with. Not to mention that most of the time you will be losing against vetted, completed companies anyway.

But if one wins against the odds, there ought to be a payoff too as a reward other than getting extra XP, which most of the time, is detrimental anyway.

Sounds like ppfarming to me, ban him!

[Mysthalin]

winning punishes you in giving you way less PP than you would gain in the same ammount of lost games.

You get a set amount of PPs regardless of win/loss. You must be talking about XP.

No, winning games gives you less PP than you would get in the same number of lost games.
Level 1 vs lvl 8s.
I win 5 games, I'm now rank 3, and gained 106 PP.
I lose 5 games, I just got rank 2, and gained 110 PP.
The PP disrepancy will keep growing with you gaining more ranks as you win.