Availability Rework

[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

[DasNoob]

So basically now youre trying to re-evaluate a system we've been voicing our concerns from day one ?
How funny/sad is it to read this now, how low on perception, and what a waste of fucking time it was for us to give insight and feedback to people that just didnt give a shit.

Well, how long till you realize that uber stacking vet/ doctrines/ grinding games and spam,  off maps and all the crazy amount of light vehicles and tanks and whichever else there is hurt mod ?

Schultz, post with your main, you know the rules.

[Dalton]

This is my main.

[Unkn0wn]

Let us know if you're concerned some units may be too expensive in comparison to others, etc.
Try to imagine how you would build your company with these new restrictions.

[31stPzrGrenadier]

I am banned from EiRR, and I don't play EiRR anymore. My main account 31stPzGren is banned by Akranadas but the rest of my accounts are not banned. I am simply posting here to illustrate some points civilly, some points and concern which some of us have raised since day one.

Whoa buddy, whats with the hostility?

I have a limited amount of time to implement anything on a day-day basis - I dont get paid to do this.

Each phase has been about focus on a *specific* part thats being worked on.

Dear EiRRMod,

The reason with the hostility is because we have voiced these concerns since day one and nearly everyone called us baseless theory crafting, said we didn't understand things, some developers said they like the way things are and among a lot of other agendas which we are accused of.

The reason we voice these concerns since day one as well is because we genuinely care for the mod and didn't want to see it go in a bad direction. We know you have a limited time, which is why, we try to give our opinions and hopefully, can save the mod significant time in having to balance and totally rethink an entire issue.

In fact, we "nay-sayers" as some has called us, has said this wouldn't work or would have a lot of problems even before EiRR came out. You can dig up the old threads under News & Announcement and you will find our posts there, assuming they aren't deleted or moderated.

There is a specific part being worked on, yes, that is correct. Which this change, it will bring you back to square one again and have to rework on everything again.

Who doesnt give a shit?  A mod that I give up time for?  Of course I give a shit.

Youve come into a polite thread, to stir up dissent, for what reason?

Following on the previous reasons, it is because it took you guys so long to realise that this thing should be change and be more carefully thought through! Many months of being "flamed", taking "flak" from people who disagree with these as well as many frustrations are not shown here.

That's what give people the impression that you don't give a shit.

We care for this mod a lot, that is why some of us spent so much time, explaining things, writing articles all in the hope that one day things can be changed. If we don't care for this mod, why would we bother spending our time doing all these?

I have also suggested before, instead of using individual unit hard caps, to give a "supply pool" concept for basic infantry. It can also apply to vehicles, tanks, support weapons etc. So many suggestions and possibilities were shut away in the past, because availability is here to stay and if not for availability, we would have the "spam" of yesteryears.

I see things like "Economic Cost" of units being brought up to restrict spam. This is a concept I have tried to advocate as well, but dismissed. All this history are in your forums, for all of you to read and find.

[Wolster]

Folks need to chill out more in these forums, if you want to have a pop at someone at least have the guts to do it on Vent, (because when verbalising such drival your brain may have more chance to intercept your gob before you make a fool of yourself), no such holdback appears to occur on the forums & junk posts just froth around the forum looking for someone to bight on.

I would just like to say to all the Dev team, well done loving the mod & thank you for your time developing, I hope crappy posts dont penetrate your personal calms to much.

[Unkn0wn]

@ pzgren

There's a reason why you were banned, coming on our forum to stir up shit with an attitude of 'I told you so'  is not helping this any further. Of course, you'll call fascism on us if we just remove your posts so we might as well take the time to respond, despite no longer deserving our response.

When a design decision is made, you have to stick by it for a long enough period to see it play out. That's rule number 1 in any development cycle. You've based your original arguments exclusively on theorycraft and you did so in an aggressive rather than constructive manner. After the implementation of availability and other 'base systems' we moved on to other things, we only JUST got into 007 and 007 is the phase in which we will be reworking veterancy, availability, doctrines and balance to hopefully achieve a more enjoyable product for everyone. We have said from the start that we would re-evaluate a lot of these systems later on, this phase has finally come.

We are working hard on improving our product and will continue doing so throughout 007 , together with the community. I think it shows of little respect that you would assume we do not care about our playerbase's opinion and as far as I'm concerned this thread is a showcase of excellent constructive community input and how it gets heard.

Lastly, this system is an improvement on our current system. This is not in any way us ditching our old system, the old system DID work but now, after finally having the time to 'pause' and 'rethink' some of the original concepts, we're now of the opinion that it can be further improved. We are still maintaining a 'PP sink' type approach to this and we are still actively working on ensuring that certain unit types will not get spammed excessively, even in this new system .

I would appreciate it if you, and others coming here with the sole intent of stirring up dissent, left it at this.

- Unkn0wn

[Akranadas]

31stPzrGrenadier is banned for ban evasion.

[Unkn0wn]

Back on topic:

Let us know if you're concerned some units may be too expensive in comparison to others, etc.
Try to imagine how you would build your company with these new restrictions.

[Mysthalin]

There would be no point to this availability system if you could have 14 rifles, 6 engies, and 9 airborne like in 006.

But noone is asking for that. The request was made to allow JUST the 9 airborne(without going into the extra "supply" pps. If airborne cost 3 PPs each and you spent your entire supply PPs, you could only have the 9 airborne and 11 riflemen, no engineers.

[bbsmith]

Thanks!

TOTALLY all my idea.

Totally your idea eh? :p

[gamesguy2]

There would be no point to this availability system if you could have 14 rifles, 6 engies, and 9 airborne like in 006.

But noone is asking for that. The request was made to allow JUST the 9 airborne(without going into the extra "supply" pps. If airborne cost 3 PPs each and you spent your entire supply PPs, you could only have the 9 airborne and 11 riflemen, no engineers.

"Just" 9 airborne?

You couldn't get "just" 9 airborne in 006 without paying oversupply for 3 and them and out of supply for the 4th.    Reinforcement packages don't count because there isn't one for 007 yet.   In the proposed system you can buy 5 airborne and 18 rifles before paying pp.  If you want to spam 9 airborne then you will have to pay pp just like you did in 007.

And armies with 9 airborne and 11 rifles is exactly what this system is designed to prevent.

[Mysthalin]

You're contradicting yourself, and you are missing the point.


And no, you could get 9 airborne with this new system without paying any PPs whatsoever.

[Unkn0wn]

On the condition that you get no other infantry

[gamesguy2]

You're contradicting yourself, and you are missing the point.

How am I contradicting myself?  Are you going to point it out or are you going to just insult me and declare victory?

And no, you could get 9 airborne with this new system without paying any PPs whatsoever.

I believe I have stated this over and over.  With the new system you can either spam elite infantry with a few basic infantry, or spam basic infantry with a few elite infantry.   This is a GOOD thing because you can no longer spam elite AND basic infantry like in 006.

[EIRRMod]

So, if anyone has any battalion builds theyd like to post using the launcher for cost bases - please post them up.

Heres one for my US AB company ( rank 8 )

Infantry (28)
4x AB (AT) - 16
5x AB Riflemen - 15
7x Riflemen - 7
Cost: 38 (Over by 10)

Light Vehicles (16)
4x Quads
1x Greyhound
1x Jeep
Cost:  16

Armour (10)
2x Shermans (AI) - 6
2x M10s - 4
Cost: 10

Support (16)
2x AB 57mm - 4
2x AB MG - 4
2x AB Medics - 4
1x AB Sniper - 4
Cost: 16

I got this far, with No PP spent, and using my entire pool for AB.
I also used MP rank 2, MU rank 3, and FU (wasted) rank 1.

[Tymathee]

Very nice. Me likey,when we gonna do this!

[Warlight]

Any chance we could get the specifics for PE and Wher

I could somewhat guestimate I well, guess.

[LuAn]

mhm how will i be able to choose for what those 10 Reserve Points can be used for?

Say if i have 10 points over in Infantry and 10 Points over in Armour, and i want those 10 points reserver to be used for infantry, (because id rather sacrifice my infantry and dont want to have any pp cost for them) how can i specify this?

Im guessing that i can manually put/spend my reserve points onto any category i want, and withdraw them via rightclick?

Oh and what will happen to units that now cost pp by default? Priest, KT, Tiger, Jagd etc? There wont be any "Elite/Special" Category/Tag or?

Because imagine this:
Say i have lots and lots of amour and im over the top with my Armour Pool, which therefore causes 10pp costs
So every unit of the armour category counts towards those armour points and therefore leads to the 10pp cost, so if i use any of those armour units, the first ones to loose are the ones worth pp. So if any Category causes PP-Costs, every unit of that category indiretly has a pp cost to it, so in order to avoid any pp loss you have to babysit every of that entire category thats causing pp costs, instead of now, where the pp cost are bound to certain units, which therefore can have a higher micro priority than others.

[EIRRMod]

LuAn,

When you overflow from any pool, the costs then come from the default or base pool (of 10)

After that, every point that cant be accounted for in its pool or from the base pool, costs a PP.

I thought about the Heavy tanks, and feel that they will probably come from the Armour pool, or straight from the Base pool.

Either way, the PP costs only happen when you are out of base pool points.

In my example here:

Heres one for my US AB company ( rank 8 )

Infantry (28)
4x AB (AT) - 16
5x AB Riflemen - 15
7x Riflemen - 7
Cost: 38 (Over by 10)

Light Vehicles (16)
4x Quads
1x Greyhound
1x Jeep
Cost:  16

Armour (10)
2x Shermans (AI) - 6
2x M10s - 4
Cost: 10

Support (16)
2x AB 57mm - 4
2x AB MG - 4
2x AB Medics - 4
1x AB Sniper - 4
Cost: 16

I got this far, with No PP spent, and using my entire pool for AB.
I also used MP rank 2, MU rank 3, and FU (wasted) rank 1.

Everything is sitting at max and the base pool is empty.
ANYTHING I now buy (if I had resources) would now cost PP.
Im over by 10 in infantry, which automatically came out of the base pool.

[Mysthalin]

I think he meant if he wants to oversupply both shermans and infantry, how to make sure he pays PPs for the shermans, and the 10 Supply points for the infantry, so he doesn't give himself a PP sink if his infantry dies?