The way PP should work.

[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

[Piotrskivich]

Wars should last a set amount of time, for example 3 months or 2 months.

PP should not be based at all on how much you play, every day everyone should get the same amount of PP.

Maybe you would get more or less PP depending on if the war was just starting or ending etc.

New players would get as much PP to start as you would have gotten if you had been there to begin with.

Then there will be no incentive to lose, and casual players will be able to take on game spammers, playing a lot will help though because you get vet.

[VERTIGGO]

Wow that's ingenious.

I hate the negative incentive right now (even though it's a side effect)

It would also remove the compulsive "playing for pp" that's just frustrating.

[Armfelt]

Sounds intresting. And yeah I would like a more laidback game, where not everybody needs to pp farm to get anywhere and everyone got the same possibilities.

Ps.
Perhaps every match will give the player a couple of SP instead, so that people who play good and often will get just more vet instead? Ds.

[Piotrskivich]

Yeah armfelt that could fit in well, just so long as it's not the main way of getting PP/SP

[BeRzErKeR]

Brilliant! So how about the resource advantages?

[Piotrskivich]

Brilliant! So how about the resource advantages?

The same as is, your daily income cane be used on Doctrines,resources or SP

Basically the only difference is how you get PP.

[bbsmith]

Maybe you could play for SP to buy Resource advantages, vet, off maps, or oversupply units.

[shockcoil]

I like how it used to work where you got more CPs for winning games and everyone who didn't play that day got a set amount of CPs up until a certain point. So basically there's more incentive to win and new players could almost get a t4 right off the bat by the end of the war.

[Lemures]

Either way you will have people making smurfs again.

Current way people purposely lose to farm PP
Old (suggested way) people create fully tiered companies to vet hunt.

[BigDick]

where is the persistence if you get PP for free?
that makes no sense

all it should be is balanced in terms of effort to gain PPs
and the current system is very good that you gain more PPs when you play higher ranks....

it need maybe some rank adjustment and ranks > 8 and maybe a slightly increase of PP gain that you don't need so many games to max out the company

[anthony210]

The problem isnt the PP gain,  the problem is people losing games on purpose so they get more pp.  Seems wierd.

[EIRRMod]

The problem isnt the PP gain,  the problem is people losing games on purpose so they get more pp.  Seems wierd.

Well, the alternative is that there is more of a penalty for losing.

This could alleviate the issue of people 'losing to win'.

[Ununoctium]

no veteran eir players from 1.5 years ago have commented.

Reason:
we used to do this and pros would just make a million accounts all at 80% done and everyone had gimmick T4s due to no war progress.

[Mukip]

The current system is pretty good but I wish things would go faster.  I'd like to see PP gain increase and wars to finish faster.  I'd also like to see a fun period for about a week or so after a war ends where people can build level 8 companies with infinite pp to try things out and have epic battles before the next war starts.  It would give newer players and people who didn't play enough to reach rank 8 a chance to play with the best stuff and might bring back some players to the mod who are daunted about grinding their way up again and they might stick around once everybody gets put back down to rank 1.

[sgMisten]

I'd like to use this opportunity to bring up my idea again. I thought it was cool but technically impossible; but EiRRMod liked it then...

[1]You still 'grind' for PPs as per what we do now.
[2]But when you get 100 PPs for account #1, (100%)
[3]account #2, #3 and #4 gain 70 PPs. (70%)

Essentially you grind PPs for your main account, and your other 3 accounts (ideally 1 for each faction to promote varied play + improved balance feedback) gain PP at a somewhat reduced rate.

This still gives an early phase of the war with low-doctrine companies, but after e.g. 1 month you don't need to grind as much to bring up the other companies up to full strength.

This is the levelling system that SW:KOTOR used.

[Armfelt]

where is the persistence if you get PP for free?
that makes no sense

There is no need to be a MMORPG like WoW, people play other RTS/strategy games even without a talent tree. As I see it the idea with talent trees is really good, but it takes too much time to get anywhere and one suggestion was that the PP resource would be produced over time. That is one suggestion and I do not fear that people will stop playing. An natural persistence to make players playing the game could be to make a progress in the war.
   However I do not know how that would look like, because a lot of players play on both axis and allies (including me), but making the game so that people actually trying to win seems like a quite obvious way to go.

Ps.
And yes as someone wrote, the resource advantages could also be bought by the SP.

[BigDick]

The problem isnt the PP gain,  the problem is people losing games on purpose so they get more pp.  Seems wierd.

Well, the alternative is that there is more of a penalty for losing.

This could alleviate the issue of people 'losing to win'.

thats an old discussion and penalties for loosing will favor stacking heavily
almost no one of the eir long time player will play than games that are probably lost from the start
there are still enough penalties for playing against a stacked team (e.g. loosing vet)

and that situation will lead us in many deadlocks where people stack on the one side in battle1 and wait for opponents...and in battle2 the same but the stacked team is waiting on the other side

wins are already rewarded over losses by reputation like stats or a good feeling to won a hard game

there is no need to punish the loosing team

[VERTIGGO]

no veteran eir players from 1.5 years ago have commented.

Reason:
we used to do this and pros would just make a million accounts all at 80% done and everyone had gimmick T4s due to no war progress.

I think you're missing the point; no one could build a fully kitted company at the end of the war. If you made an account at the end, you would simply be well behind everyone else. If you made 10 accounts at the beginning, you would have no veterans, and it would also be simple to have a maximum pp float so you had to choose docs along the way, or like they are proposing now, a more sequential tree. Anyway, why not let people have multiple accounts with the same level? If you have to choose your doc path along the way, you can't tailor them to individual matches anymore than we do now with multiple companies. It just takes a lot more zerg matching to support the pp income right now.

Bottom line: PP has absolutely nothing to do with skill ATM, in fact it is gained more quickly by companies that maintain a low win/loss ratio. The only effect it has in the global sense is that those who play less or win more of their games remain at a tremendous disadvantage to anyone who plays 24/7 and manages to level up as slowly as possible.

[anthony210]

no veteran eir players from 1.5 years ago have commented.

Reason:
we used to do this and pros would just make a million accounts all at 80% done and everyone had gimmick T4s due to no war progress.

Ive been playing EiR for 2.5 years.  =)


I would like to see more reward for winning,  and less reward for losing.  PP gain right now is totally off.  Perhaps add bonus exp to all units that fought in the battle for the winning team and lower the PP gain for the losing team.  That right there will give enough incentive not to lose on purpose IMO.

[CrazyWR]

honestly, how many people really lose on purpose?  There is (IMO) much more of a stacking/dodging problem than a losing on purpose problem...