Separate PP and XP so there's no incentive to remain at low level.

[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

[VERTIGGO]

Right now there is a huge incentive to lose battles with a new company because the faster you level up, the less PP you get per battle, ultimately getting you to level 8 with only half the PP you need for doctrines, etc. This is a consequence of using the average level of each team to determine your incentive to play that game (how much PP you get).

I propose to use XP for this solely, and keep PP constant. This way, if you beat a team whose levels are higher than your team's, you earn more points toward promotion, sort of like Relic's ranking. This, I feel is sufficient incentive to play against good players, since you need to level up for unlocks.

Also, if PP were constant, people wouldn't need to game dodge and try to lose games to keep their level as low as possible until they've earned enough PPs. Everyone would have equal incentive to earn XP and PP would just be a reward for playing.

The bottom line is that we currently have a negative incentive, which is not only frustrating, but makes it harder for games to get together, since high levels get very small compensation for playing low levels, while low levels are desperately trying to play high levels for PP and to keep their level low.

[Mysthalin]

I do agree there is a problem - but other methods should be seeked - I simply am in disagreement with what you proposed - what you propose would incentivise noobstomping.

[VERTIGGO]

I do agree there is a problem - but other methods should be seeked - I simply am in disagreement with what you proposed - what you propose would incentivise noobstomping.

How so? If you're level 8, you don't need PP anymore. If you're lower, you still need XP (say 300XP to go from 7-8) so you want to play good players in order to get XP. There would still be zero benefit from noobstomping, since you either still need XP or you don't need PP anymore.

Basically, mid levels will still want to play higher levels, and higher levels will still have no incentive to play lower levels. Currently when you're maxed out, noobstomping is on you because you don't need anything anymore.

[Tymathee]

well thats why we need to have the option to reset the company with the pp's still in tact just for the efun of it.

[RikiRude]

yeah there should also be an incentive to win as well.

you should get extra xp/pp/sp/exp on troops whatever when you win.

another thing to stop players from throwing games. i agree something needs to be done, but im with mysth not sure if that's the best way to go about it, but at least you proposed an idea.

[puddin]

Here is the problem, Most ppl remember when you LOST 10% of your total vet when you lost a game.  It forced people to play hard, But caused many not to play with Noobs. 

I suggest this. 

If you play someone of similar team rank within 1 level either way, Meaning if a rank 5 team takes on a rank 4 or 6 team, There is a chance at vet loss.


Thsi being because its a pretty fair game, and level 8s vs level8s will force peopel to use their units.  Makign for more intense games. 

Right now if you lsoe you lose, there is no real penalty, you can pull your vet off after a couple kills and say fuck it all i am done.

If there is no penalty for a loss besides a loss Some in this community refuse to play

Also the winner should get something, Maybe some SP, PP, or XP to every unit called on that killed something.  Not alot, but enough maybe 5-10 depending if it is inf or tanks.  So that it encourgaes peopel to at least use stuff. 

Right now, The benefit for a noob level 1 is awsome... 24 PPs plus the bonus maps?  Man thats 30+pps ina  game...

Personally i want to win every game, BUt if you don;t force some ppls hands...  They just don;t care,.  The war map should also help with that as well. 

[EIRRMod]

I believe tying more to the (actual) warmap as incentives to win will allay this issue.  Its compounded at the moment (in concept AND in practice) due to there being no OTHER incentives.

The gains given for winning a game will include another currency - which will be a constant whether a win or a loss, which is spent on the warmap itself.

[Mysthalin]

How so? If you're level 8, you don't need PP anymore. If you're lower, you still need XP (say 300XP to go from 7-8) so you want to play good players in order to get XP. There would still be zero benefit from noobstomping, since you either still need XP or you don't need PP anymore.

Basically, mid levels will still want to play higher levels, and higher levels will still have no incentive to play lower levels. Currently when you're maxed out, noobstomping is on you because you don't need anything anymore.

If only XP is dynamic, if you play against higher levels, your XP soars, while your PPs stay at a set standard. If you get loads of XP, you're at lvl 8 with tons of PPs needed for all your doctrine choises. If you're lvl 8, people will start avoiding you because there are other people with rank 1 accounts - and there is no incentive to play against you, leaving you with too few PPs to finish your doctrines.

Vicious circle.

[shockcoil]

Hey I gots an idea... let's bring back ANTS!

[EIRRMod]

Personally i want to win every game, BUt if you don;t force some ppls hands...  They just don;t care,.  The war map should also help with that as well. 

This is my main concern.

No matter what the benefit for the warmap, people may still not care.

Vet loss.... Now theres a fun thought =)

[Smokaz]

I think one harsh but effective way to help solve these issues is to increase responsibility as you level up your company. You should get no pps at all for playing anything below level 7 when you are level 8.

Wins against less than team level 7 with a level 8 team level shouldn't count. As a bigwig general you dont get glory points from high command for stomping out less experienced commanders in scenarios where you have the resource advantage.

It's harsh but a lot of persistent worlds with leveled profiles or accounts have similar systems to keep these from stomping on much lower level accounts/profiles. If people really want a game they can help make it more fair by logging on to another account, thats what happens in other games.

Make xp gain take a -50% modifier for team level 8's taking on team levels below 6.

I am convinced this would smoke out a lot of stompers and after a difficult time of chance and adapation game forming in the launcher would end up feeling more sympathic between the players.

[BigDick]

if units loose vet and xp for loosing games that make people maybe play more aggressive to win games but it may many many games not happen

people will stack people will dodge more

the mod needs active played games not people idling in launcher and waiting for their game....

i think the current system is very good and all changes will have massive downsides in favor of stacking or not playing at all


the MTG (meantime to game) is much lower currently than it was in old EiR
people where waiting ours for a game because they got punished for loosing by exp decrease

[sgMisten]

I think one harsh but effective way to help solve these issues is to increase responsibility as you level up your company. You should get no pps at all for playing anything below level 7 when you are level 8.

Wins against less than team level 7 with a level 8 team level shouldn't count. As a bigwig general you dont get glory points from high command for stomping out less experienced commanders in scenarios where you have the resource advantage.

The problem with this is that it's very easy right now to reach rank 8, and still be 200-250 PPs away from maxing out your company. Even currently with the current PP levels you can still take anywhere from 20 to 35 games of grinding from brand new rank 8 to maxed out rank 8. With this kind of restriction you'd need, I'm guessing, 40-50 games to max out, excluding time waiting in the launcher to get a game. Adding in the games to get from rank 1 to new rank 8, total of 80? games or so + waiting time in launcher to max out. That's crazy.

[Mysthalin]

I need 60 games to max out my lvl 8 brittish company if I play only lvl 8 teams.

See the problem there, smokie?

If now I have a 2:1 PP to Exp disrepancy, with what demon suggested it could actually escalate to 4:1 (win versus max rank enemies consistently, 2x Exp for win, 2x exp for them being ahead in rank).

[NCOIC]

So that explains my losing streak? I thought it's just cuz I suck

[Smokaz]

Well to compensate for that PP gain should be adjusted (2x?) and instead make SP more expensive (2x?), basically making advancing doctrines and advantages faster than gathering SP's for veterancy and offmaps. Add this change to the ones I've already proposed, and we got something that punishes high level accounts for playing lowbie accounts without hurting the company building of lower level accounts.  It also makes the vet hoarding you see once the company is maxed more of a grind, which it of course should be for amassing hordes of vet 3 grenadiers or vet 3 airborne. It ALSO limits offmaps, which you also see people spamming in what they perceive to be a even or tough game for them once they have maxed out their companies. And since they will be playing other high level companies, net loss of vet and expenses to offmaps should be consistently high.

It doesnt get any more perfect than that.

[Mysthalin]

What about the people who DON'T have a horde of veterancy at level 8?
For instance, I will never have quite as much vet on my lvl 8 US account as I will on even a lvl 5 CW/WM.

[Smokaz]

What do you even mean? Vet is entirely up to you to achieve.

[Ununoctium]

Rank:
ELO System (same as chess)
PP+XP:
constant 15 + up to 5 for rank difference and up to 5 for XP difference