Veterancy Degredation.

[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

[acker]

I'm going from this thread.

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=11433.0

Soldiers reach peak effectiveness after an average of 90 days in combat, then begin to degrade due to fatalism and other mental stress effects...at least, that's what the US Army figured out during WWII.


Units that reach the vet3 threshold should continue to gain EXP for eight to ten games (note: said unit MUST get at least 1 EXP in the game for said game to count to prevent exploitation by opponents). From there, said units should stop gaining EXP, and should begin to lose 10% of their EXP every game, until said units reach the vet2 threshold. Units should stop losing or gaining EXP when they reach this threshold.

I did the calculations with a 50 EXP vet3 Rifle squad, and said rifle squad would retain vet3 for...13-16 [counted] games, assuming said Rifle squad kills 5 EXP worth of enemy units each game. And it would take seven more games for the rifle squad to reach the vet2 threshold. The same pattern appears to hold true for the Pershing and Calliope, assuming that they earn 20 EXP per game or so. The percentage degradation can be changed, of course, I'm not suggesting a fixed number*. IT would probably have to be tailored for each unit or unit category...maybe.




This would also only seriously manifest itself in the late war due to the massive number of games required to delevel an effectively-used vet3 unit. And its not as if saving vet would be a bad thing either, vet2 units are still very good, and vet2 is the lowest a unit could go.

This would effectively end high-level vet whoring for obvious reasons. It also encourages players to use their units aggressively (the more EXP you rack up, the more games a unit is going to remain vet3). Saving vet is still a good thing, vet 2 units are still quite decent at their job.

This might also prevent certain nonexistent people from ragequitting when their precious vet3, 300-EXP infantry squads get owned. Because their units are going to eventually lose vet anyways. The nonexistent people out there know who they are not, because they don't exist, of course.

*Actually, a constant 10-15% loss from their vet3 threshold EXP for the counted game might be better...for instance, a Rifle squad would lose a flat rate of 5-7.5 EXP per game rather than losing 10% of their total EXP per game. This would reward aggressive unit use much better than the previously suggested 90% exponential decay rate.

[AmPM]

Would be great, but does not encourage winning over losing.

Extra XP loss for losing.

[LuAn]

Why would you punish players for loosing a game?

[acker]

Would be great, but does not encourage winning over losing.


Extra XP loss for losing.

A system for people to favor winning over losing is not part of my proposal...you'd have to think of an additional addon, I can't really think of one besides the fact that most people like to win.

I think you know why your second paragraph can't be implemented, at least in a form I can think of. Stacking/leaving sucks enough without further encouragement, and its the best way to drive off potential players.

An EXP BONUS (something small, like +10-20%) for winning (but no penalty for losing) might work, but it still needs work...maybe a small (+5% to damage) morale bonus to armies that have won their previous game?

...Well, it's beyond the scope.

[AmPM]

I suppose, but then you end up with the same problem since people will stack more in order to get enough XP to keep vet3.

[acker]

Yeah, that's the problem I keep running into when thinking about this...but rewarding the winning team is still better than punishing the losing team.

The problem still revolves around stacking, because people stack because they want to win...and adding bonuses to winning or penalties to losing causes stacking to become even more problematic...the only solution that I could see is the ability to randomize teams and add bonuses for winning, but that can't work, not for EIR.

I'll keep thinking. But can we please get back on topic? Stacking is beyond the scope of the suggestion I'm making...


Shit. I spelled "Degradation" wrong.

[Jazlizard]

It's all semantics. Having a bonus for winning is the same as having a penalty for losing, the net difference is the same. Perception is all that matters, but weather you discourage losing or encourage winning it's all the same.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

As for the OP, losing XP over time is a terrible idea, I don't care for the realism argument or what the army thought they knew in 1940's, having served both in the military and for intelligence agencies that support them, I can assure you these studies aren't worth jack.

It's a game, and although I think it would be kinda cool if we had subtler vet levels and more of then, similar to other mods, there are probably other more pressing things to implement.

Lastly some of the problems will go away as the wars get reset every few months or so.

[acker]

It's all semantics. Having a bonus for winning is the same as having a penalty for losing, the net difference is the same. Perception is all that matters, but weather you discourage losing or encourage winning it's all the same.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

As for the OP, losing XP over time is a terrible idea...

It's a game, and although I think it would be kinda cool if we had subtler vet levels and more of then, similar to other mods, there are probably other more pressing things to implement.


Lastly some of the problems will go away as the wars get reset every few months or so.

First off, I put in the realism thing just for the people who would come here and say "it's unrealistic". I'm perfectly aware that realism means very little in video games, as I've stated multiple times in various posts around this forum that you have surely read.

Perception DOES matter. If you've worked with intelligence agencies, how would you NOT know that? People hate getting hit by the stick much more than seeing other people get the carrot [overly simplified, depends on whether the people around them are getting the stick/carrot]. That said, it's still a pretty bad idea that's completely irrelevant to the topic.

...And why do you think that controlled vet decay is a bad idea? You didn't exactly post a reason. It would really only matter in the late war, so how would it be detrimental? Most people would lose their vet3 units LONG before the 13-16 game limit...and that limit is just for nonaggressive use, it's much higher for people who actually use vetted units to kills lots of units. On the fixed-rate scale at the high 15% limit, a vet3 Rifle squad that earns 10 EXP per game would take over 20 games to degrade, assuming worst-case scenario. Best case with the 10% fixed (nonexponential, linear) rate, it would be 30 games.

*You make the BAR look larger and sound awesome in comparison to the STG44, people will swear that the BAR is more powerful and less accurate, regardless of the fact that both weapons have the same statistics apart from magazine size (referencing a past version of DOD:S). It's something random that comes to mind for some reason.

[Jazlizard]

I said perception is all that matters. No argument there. I think the perception is the same if you give the winner more xp, or the loser less xp, it's really the same thing and I'm fairly sure everyone will see through that and even if it wasn't for the xp/pp most folks still play to win because it's in most gamers competitive nature.

I think it's a bad idea because the mod is based on persistence, with resets eventually built in through the "war" system. It makes no sense to punish folks who are able to keep units alive throughtout the war, people play for fun, but also for the sense of achievement. I think having you eventually lose all your xp for no reason just isn't very fun, doesn't add to the gameplay and further diminishes sense of achievement even more then the constant resets will. Hence a bad idea.

If you want folks to be more aggressive with their vet give them incentives (more vet levels with smaller bonuses), not disincentive, we both seem to agree that's the way to go, but I don't see how your idea follows that.

[AmPM]

I told Salan about this idea already, but never posted it publicly.

What if instead of any normal bonus/penalty you instead make it so that people can only reach vet 4+ through playing of a "hardcore" game mode, its just another toggle, but it adds an XP loss for all units if you lose, and larger PP bonuses for winning.

Then certain things are limited to people that want to actually risk something, so you can't lose games and still farm vet 4+.

Back on topic of xp loss over time, I dunno, it won't prevent vet hordes, just encourage farming vs poor players.

[acker]

Jazlizard's post:

First off, read my post. You don't eventually lose lose all your EXP. Your units stop losing EXP at vet2. Which is still quite good. Vet3 would be a unit steroid choice that costs PP. Furthermore, it would take around 20-30 games to actually reach something below vet3, once you select vet3 for a unit and use said unit well.

Secondly, I do believe that this mod should punish people who excessively baby their units. It's no fun to lose a game just because some person retreats their precious vetted units at the first sign of trouble, after they get two or three kills. You pay for vet, you better use it.

Thirdly, you completely misinterpreted my post. I'm not trying to add vet levels, which would simply add to this late-war mess. I'm trying to create a vet-reduction system that would kick in in the late war.

Finally, people would be rewarded for aggressive unit use, not punished. Since vet decay kicks in after the unit has had quite a bit of time to gain EXP, people who gain tons of EXP would retain their vet3 units for much longer than people who didn't gain tons of EXP. And games where vet3 unit doesn't gain EXP don't count towards the decay count.

[Jazlizard]

I never said you wanted more vet levels. I merely suggested that you thought it was better to give incentives to encourage people then disincentives, and that I thought you can do that with more vet levels with SMALLER and DIFFERENT bonuses then are currently given.

I think folks are already penalized for babying their units somewhat. I've seen players who retreated all their units way to early to save their vet that pretty much single-handedly cost them the game because of it. Same with tanks that basically sat way back and did nothing but take up pop. This can be pretty frustrating if that person is on your team, but honestly I think some folks will do it weather that unit will eventually go down to vet 2 or not.

Another problem I see is one that AmPM already mention is that it may just encourage folks to stomp more to super inflate their unit XP. To be honest I hadn't thought of this at first, but now that he's mentioned it I can definitely see it happening, and a possible outcome is that instead of encouraging folks to be more aggressive, it will encourage folks to play more lopsided games where they know their units will get more xp, and instead of encouraging risk, will discourage it, because seriously, why play a game with vet 3's if the won't get very much xp and that is what determines how long they stay vet 3?

Again, part of the problem is the war has gone on waay too long.

Lastly I don't think it will have the effect you think it will, folks won't be much more aggressive with vet then they already are, as generally that's just a good way to get your stuff killed, even under your system it's better to have it live and go down to vet 2, then risk it dying just for a few more xp.

[Two]

One of the things i like about this mod is showing off about having the highest vet unit, that wouldnt be possible this way :/

[lionel23]

I'll have to agree with Jazlizard, I don't think the idea of vet degradation would be a good idea for EiR.

Under the OP idea, then wouldn't quitting the game early and not engaging his vet units encourage griefing to screw over his 'average' amount of XP he needs to retain vet?  And what stops say my single riflesquad being vet 3, running in and sticky bombing a tiger (which they would take heavy losses some games to do) and if they kill it I could just retreat it.  Then wouldn't that still boil down to me retreating that unit after it has done it's specific single task and pulling it off?

In addition, regardless of changes to 'aggressiveness with vet units', I also agree with Jaz that people will still use their vet units the same way.  It comes down to playstyle sometimes, and I have raised my voice (in the heat of the moment) to certain teammates I play with frequently to be more aggressive, and its not about losing vet units is that they don't think they would have a chance even with support.  I tend to be an aggressive player myself, and I can tell you when I was doing riflemen in my US inf army, they had a hell of a time getting even 2-3 kills a game if they're lucky (unless you start buying crazy upgrades like BAR/nades/sticky on every squad or something).

The main reason I don't like this idea of vet loss is also, at least how I play, I'll lose what makes some of my units really effective (riflemen sticky range bonus for example).  Or especially my favorite were the pair of vet 3 hellcats I had.  Just because they are vetted doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid and charge them head on into a King Tiger because I want to be aggressive.  I still use them as intended but I won't needlessly throw them away and I will still play them the same way, but with the vet I know I can rely on them doing a better job, and if the idea is implemented on vet loss, then wouldn't it be super easy to do that with some squads like charging KCH and retreating them after X amount of kills to retain this so called 'vet' while the poor M10 may get lucky with a single kill before being hit so much (with their paper thin armor) that they need to pull off?

So to sum it up, I think the vet system is best left as is.  You still lose units, you still gain vet, it's sometimes a tough choice for players to dump points into SP to get the vet cause units will die and some people will still shed a tear when that vet 3 unit dies.  I know I have when I get my just vetted 3 rifles insta-gibbed their first match from artillery or something XD