*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 10, 2024, 10:57:35 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I am abused, I am forgotten, I am worthless; I am the average infantryman  (Read 21550 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BigDick
Guest
« Reply #80 on: August 18, 2009, 02:13:20 pm »

indeed...taking fuel down would nerf Armor hard, along with RE, all of PE, Blitz, and Terror...it would make infantry pretty much the default doctrine choice for Americans...

that depends on the way you build your armor company i always use all my fuel by putting in some stuff that i dont really need just because i have fuel left but actually my armor company is more limited by availability of units

to lower fuel for all would favor my armor company because there would be a panther or P4 less to deal with
Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #81 on: August 18, 2009, 02:15:02 pm »

Some of us do not just run light vehicle spam =)

Logged


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jazlizard Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 691


« Reply #82 on: August 18, 2009, 02:20:07 pm »

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.
Logged

Quote from: Phil
The MOD is over. The war is over. We're too lazy to restart it. You can all go fuck pickles mom, I hear she's easy.
BigDick
Guest
« Reply #83 on: August 18, 2009, 02:33:54 pm »

Some of us do not just run light vehicle spam =)



maybe but that is how the devs want eirr be played by having 4xT17 tripple (maybe 4x buffed because of shrek nerfs) buffed (fuel 90->50, availability 2->4, doubled health with skirts)
and still 4 (lowpop) quads and cheap and always usefull 3xM8
if you add some cheap tankdestroyers and at guns your not really limited by fuel you would benefit when your opponents could field less armor but you can keep spaming light vehicles

all you need as armor are at guns light armor 2xT1 and some recrewing rifles
Logged
LuAn Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 572



« Reply #84 on: August 18, 2009, 02:38:26 pm »

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.


+1
Logged

aka UckY  Wink
Malevolence Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 1871



« Reply #85 on: August 18, 2009, 03:10:37 pm »

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.


This man gets it. If you think that MP going up would encourage too much "spam" or such, then there's no reason to gimp vehicles to let us have more infantry. This has been my point, stop scaling back and start scaling up. Don't make people have fewer vehicles to get more infantry, that's again working at the problem from both ends which makes it very easy to overcompensate, make people ONLY get more infantry by reducing the price of infantry.

This whole "we're gonna nerf the pak AND buff the sherman!" type attitude to balance results in wildly swinging fluctuating values rather than the much more appropriate single-variable adjustments in smaller increments. One thing at a time, please...
Logged

Akranadas' Greatest Hits, Volume 1:

Quote from: Akranadas
Vet has nothing to do with unit preformance.

Quote from: Akranadas
We are serious about enforcing this, and I am sure you all want to be able to have your balance thought considered by the development team with some biased, sensationalist coming into your thread and ruining it.
EIRRMod Offline
Administrator / Lead Developer
*
Posts: 11009



« Reply #86 on: August 18, 2009, 03:15:38 pm »

If you want more basic infantry, why not make them cheaper? Why mess with resources that effect other things outside of the thing you want to increase the amount of?

If you want less vehicles, guess what? make vehicles cost more fuel! Reductions in fuel on a global scale hurt tanks more than light vehicles. What you'd really be doing is encouraging folks to use less tanks and more light vehicles. It also hurts other units that cost fuel that aren't really vehicles like the neble and howitzer, which will then have to be re-evaluated for fuel costs.

My point is if you mess with stuff on a global scale, you have to re-evaluate the cost of everything to make sure it's in proportion to the new value of fuel or mp, even if it's only a 10-20% reduction.

I also disagree that shorter = more intense, and there is too many jokes that come to mind with that phrase so I'll just leave it at that. The intensity of the game is primarily, and almost entirely, determined by the skill level of the teams competing against each other.


This man gets it. If you think that MP going up would encourage too much "spam" or such, then there's no reason to gimp vehicles to let us have more infantry. This has been my point, stop scaling back and start scaling up. Don't make people have fewer vehicles to get more infantry, that's again working at the problem from both ends which makes it very easy to overcompensate, make people ONLY get more infantry by reducing the price of infantry.

This whole "we're gonna nerf the pak AND buff the sherman!" type attitude to balance results in wildly swinging fluctuating values rather than the much more appropriate single-variable adjustments in smaller increments. One thing at a time, please...
I believe this comes from too many Devs commenting on different aspects of 'what could happen' Wink

We're not touching Resources atm.
We're not touching Advantages atm.
We're changing the Availability system (slightly) - its still the same in spirit.

So yeah, You'll find out in a couple of days ;p
Logged

Quote from: brn4meplz
Shit I'm pretty sure you could offer the guy a cup of coffee and he'd try to kill you with the mug if you forgot sugar.
Quote from: tank130
That's like offering Beer to fuck the fat chick. It will work for a while, but it's not gonna last. Not only that, but there is zero motivation for the Fat chick to loose weight.
Quote from: tank130
Why don't you collect up your love beads and potpourri and find something constructive to do.
Smokaz Offline
Honoured Member
*
Posts: 11418



« Reply #87 on: August 18, 2009, 03:24:25 pm »

Rifles could go up to 18 availability. The same pool of mainline infantry has to supply

1) Recrewing (grenadier availability is not affected by fielding recrewing volks in your company, is it?
2) Supression, anti infantry infantry, grenade suicide squads
3) Stickies (Armor doc's only at option on their infantry, the only quick response to circling tanks or crippling super tanks)

I do believe rifle roles can be understood like this.  When you consider that 8 grenadiers possib ly could woop the ass of 12 rifles with the same amount of pop on the field.
Logged

SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 36 queries.