Cost System should be reworked

[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

[tankspirit668]

Cost System / Availibilty System should be reworked


Why does it need rework ?

Spamming certain types of units gets out of hand at the  moment. There are a lot of gimmicky company builds around which field just a couple of units at all bu in large numbers. If you think this is okay, fun and fine stop reading. If you think variety company builds  should be rewarded read on.

How should it work ?

Every unit get`s more expensive after every  purchase. So bying a unit the first time it costs the usual price. The pricing gets increased after every additional purchase by a factor.

The factor should be quite low for common infantry units, steeper for Vehicles  and very steep for artillery and elite Units.

Example 1:


Cannonfodder Infantry:

Manpower 300 Ammo 100 Cost Multiplier 1.15

Purchased One Cannonfodder INfantry for that price:

Manpower 300 Ammo 100 Cost


New Pricing for Cannon FOdder Infantry

Manpower 345 Ammo 115 Multiplier 1,15

Purchased another Cannonfodder INfantry for that price:

Manpower 345 Ammo 115

New Pricing fot Cannon Fodder Infantry

Manpower 397 Ammo 132

and so on


Example 2:

Artillery of doom:

Manpower 700 Ammo 400 Cost Multiplier 1.80

Purchased one Artillery of Doom for that price:

Manpower 700 Ammo 400

New Pricing for Artillery of doom after 1st buy:

Manpower 1260 Ammo 720


and so on.


Intention

Players  get less bang for the buck for spamming only few types of units ( they still can, but it comes with a price). Player, that used balanced company builds get rewarded with generally lower prices .

[Trishut]

It would make that those with just 1 of each kind of unit have most resources.
If I like P4 and get a couple of them, shall I be punished with less resources?

[tankspirit668]

It would make that those with just 1 of each kind of unit have most resources.
If I like P4 and get a couple of them, shall I be punished with less resources?

Each Purchase of the same unit comes with a higher price. The cost multiplier differs from unit to unit . P 4 is a common main battle tank. Therefore the Price increase should not be too steep ( compared to elite units , artillery, etc). You have the same amount of ressources, but you have to pay a higher price after every additional P4 in you company. So you get hardly punished for using some P4, but punished hard for spamming P4s.

[Mysthalin]

This punishes allied players far more than axis players due to less variety in units. Yes, let's punish the US players even more, just because they have a small unit roster.


---Killer344: keep the personal stuff out please.

[lionel23]

I can barely do 5 M10s in my company... so you're saying that I should be punished by having less M10s because that's the cheapest tanks I can afford yet they'll progressively get more expensive than shermans after X amount of buys?

I can't see how this would benefit many factions, an individual higher resource price can be done to solve this, as well as higher pool cost (I already pay an excessive amount for rangers, being 4 pool each and not 1), so in essense you'd be double-punishing players.  And then you got factions like US and PE... PE has one basic infantry, and then if I'm fielding a US Riflemen company, I'm going to be punished for taking lots of riflemen (the core of any infantry army) and then have to take the useless allied MG and expensive engineers and short range mortars on top of that?  This effectively punishes them more due to low unit variety.  And then what about Brits? I guess if they take too many Tommys (which are already more expensive than Recon), I guess I need to recon spam too to offset this or sappers for anti-infantry, who are also more expensive pool-wise?

Easiest way to fix this issue, if it is an issue with certain units, is adjust the pool cost and then maybe resourcing.  Resources already restrict much of what you can do (I can take at most 4-5 fireflys with no CCT in my Royal Engineers for example due to fuel and armor pool costs), so let's use what's in system and working now instead of adding new and I think convoluted things into EIR now.

[tankspirit668]

This punishes allied players far more than axis players due to less variety in units. Yes, let's punish the US players even more, just because they have a small unit roster.
Not actually surprised, considering the thread author.

Why do you think the allies will be more punished by that. The punishment is reflected by the cost multiplier of each unit. No one said , the factor of a riflemen should be the same like a Grenadier or a Volks Unit. This let`s  punish allied players thing only exists just in your imagination.
 

[Mysthalin]

Because they have a much lower unit roster?

Incremental cost values are something that will make company building an absolute pain, especially for beginers, strain the launcher and server on it's processing power (more calculations per purchase) and will just make balancing mainline infantry extremely hard to do.

[lionel23]

I think Mys has a very good point though, allies in general have poor company choices that are versatile, while axis have specialized squads.

Example:
Riflemen - Anti-inf, anti-armor (with Stickys or Bazookas)
Engineers - Very fragile anti-inf and builder
Rangers/Airborne - Expensive, elite infantry; 4x pool cost than rifles and 2x more than engineers

M10 - Only American tank that can penetrate an axis tank with no upgrades
M18 - Ambushing tank, can penetrate with vet, slower than M10
Sherman - Inf tank, can only penetrate with expensive upgrades

So according to this 'system' you propose Tank, it would in essence punish my rifle company if I ran 38 riflemen squads.  What if I'm tailoring my company to take advantage of my doctrine choices?  Why should I be forced to get heavy engineers or heavy tanks when my doctrine choice (infantry in this example) offers no buffs to them?  Also, what if I use units with doctrines to make up for a weakness in my force to suit my playstyle? (Ie. Tank reapers makes bazookas down right scary, so if I want to ditch all my ATGs for mobility based man-packed AT, I shouldn't be punished for doing something different).

[Smokaz]

Tank spirit, can you think of any examples of how this system would be superior to the current one?

[Tymathee]

I agree with Myst, this does punish allied players more because we have one "cannon fodder infantry" and thats the rifle and most allies have at least 8, while for wehwr and pe you'll have a mix of volks and grens and pz grens and assault grens, etc.

this wont work, i think the cost system is fine, find a way to combat spam, i'ts a lot easier than you think.

[tankspirit668]

Tank spirit, can you think of any examples of how this system would be superior to the current one?

This system would be simper to understand, it could replace the current availibility system and address some flaws of it.

Wth the current availibility and pricing system we still see unit spam , even players, who specialise in playing spam. There are players who have 3 howitzers in a company and are punished for it only directly after oversupplying them.

So you basically can spam some certain units , get buffs and getting not really punished for it. There are some types of units which are spammable, but the chance to lose them is quite low. For example Rangers, Jagdppanthers or Howitzers.

With the proposed system you would be punished every time you use your company , instead of just every time you loose your precious pp costing unit(like Jagdpanther), just because you can afford less units because the higher price .  

[tankspirit668]

I agree with Myst, this does punish allied players more because we have one "cannon fodder infantry" and thats the rifle and most allies have at least 8, while for wehwr and pe you'll have a mix of volks and grens and pz grens and assault grens, etc.

this wont work, i think the cost system is fine, find a way to combat spam, i'ts a lot easier than you think.

I don`t know how you can agree with Myst, because I have clearly ( and with purpose ) not mentioned any specific units or mentioned any cost multipliers for any units (shermans and riflemen included).

So the Riflemen receive  more Unit Diversity ( like it was done for PE - it was created for the current availibility system i think to remember ) or the Riflemen get a very or no cost increase. So both measures or one of them could solve  the stated  problem.

It will work to fight spam , it would work way better after 2nd or 3rd revision  than this here ever will. At the mment we have artifical PP Costs on Units, that just hut when you buy it and an artifical construct of Weapon Pools. The Pricing and the Cost Modifier could do it all and be simpler.

[tankspirit668]

Because they have a much lower unit roster?

Incremental cost values are something that will make company building an absolute pain, especially for beginers, strain the launcher and server on it's processing power (more calculations per purchase) and will just make balancing mainline infantry extremely hard to do.

That`s not true. The current system is  more complicated:

• Costs Of Unit
• PP Costs Of Unit
• Unit Pool Costs

Instead of:

• Costs Of Unit
• Cost Multiplier

[lionel23]

This system would be simper to understand, it could replace the current availibility system and address some flaws of it.

Wth the current availibility and pricing system we still see unit spam , even players, who specialise in playing spam. There are players who have 3 howitzers in a company and are punished for it only directly after oversupplying them.

So you basically can spam some certain units , get buffs and getting not really punished for it. There are some types of units which are spammable, but the chance to lose them is quite low. For example Rangers, Jagdppanthers or Howitzers.

With the proposed system you would be punished every time you use your company , instead of just every time you loose your precious pp costing unit(like Jagdpanther), just because you can afford less units because the higher price .  

Whoa whoa, so you're saying that my company, which does in fact run 3 howitzers, is only punished if I take more than 3?  It's within my supply pool and I shouldn't be punished for it aside from paying the high resource cost, which translate into having a bare 5 M10s and 1 HT, maybe 2 if I push it.  So now you want to limit my company by restricting even more howtizers in this case?  It seems you're proposing an alternative way to hard cap certain units without outright saying you want to hardcap, which I am against if that will mean the only way I can have the company I want means I have to field nothing but your unit choices, which I find is quite arbitray and boring.  Pool value is there for a reason, and I have lost a few howitzers and countless rangers to artillery and stuff, so don't even say rangers are hard to lose.  All it takes is a slow-causing unit or a lucky offm-map or mortar or a flamer squad critting the entire squad or and ostwind blowing the entire squad to the man before it can even turn around and retreat....

My point now, I have a T3 choice that buffs my howitzer, so I take 3 at most to take advantage of it.  If you propose your change, then I want to see doctrines redone where my one howitzer has 300% shells and 80% less incoming accuracy and 90% Reload if you're going to restrict how many I have, then I want the few I have to be good.  Already I have to deal with a howitzer's high pop, its inability to move, its slow crew retreat, how it can overall hurt my team's performance being that it means I have less frontline troops on the field due to the cap... these things are already disadvantages that we seriously don't need to double nerf companies for sporting variety.  Give me SMG and double bazooka riflemen and a seperate 76mm Easy 8 Sherman and Sherman Jumbo, then we'll talk more  

[tankspirit668]

Whoa whoa, so you're saying that my company, which does in fact run 3 howitzers, is only punished if I take more than 3?  It's within my supply pool and I shouldn't be punished for it aside from paying the high resource cost, which translate into having a bare 5 M10s and 1 HT, maybe 2 if I push it.  So now you want to limit my company by restricting even more howtizers in this case?  It seems you're proposing an alternative way to hard cap certain units without outright saying you want to hardcap, which I am against if that will mean the only way I can have the company I want means I have to field nothing but your unit choices, which I find is quite arbitray and boring.
...
My point now, I have a T3 choice that buffs my howitzer, so I take 3 at most to take advantage of it.  If you propose your change, then I want to see doctrines redone where my one howitzer has 300% shells and 80% less incoming accuracy and 90% Reload if you're going to restrict how many I have, then I want the few I have to be good.  Already I have to deal with a howitzer's high pop, its inability to move, its slow crew retreat, how it can overall hurt my team's performance being that it means I have less frontline troops on the field due to the cap... these things are already disadvantages that we seriously don't need to double nerf companies for sporting variety.

Yes you are maybe one guy with three howitzers. And it`s an perfect example. You have your doctrinal buffs, so you are rewared for "spamming" three howitzers. And if the current availibility penealities would work and if that woud not work out, I guess your 3 howitzer company wouldn' t exist.

With the new system: You get your doctrinal buffs, you get your  howitzers, but with an overall  higher price. So you have to balance things out. The question would be : Max out effectiveness of doctrinal buffs by spamming a single type of buffed unit or is it better for the cost situation to use other units instead? It`s not boring , it`s different. You get rewareded for more unit variety in your company, what is fantastic , in my point of view.
 

 Pool value is there for a reason, and I have lost a few howitzers and countless rangers to artillery and stuff, so don't even say rangers are hard to lose.  All it takes is a slow-causing unit or a lucky offm-map or mortar or a flamer squad critting the entire squad or and ostwind blowing the entire squad to the man before it can even turn around and retreat....
....
  Give me SMG and double bazooka riflemen and a seperate 76mm Easy 8 Sherman and Sherman Jumbo, then we'll talk more  

Rangers don`t die easy. Play some more PE and enjoy their INfantry for a comparision . It`s just a question of time till some new units will come out for allies as reward units. The Jagdpanzer IV will be introduced as a reward unit for axis, as far as I know. The stated Pricing System would make them even more precious. Fantastic, isn`t it?

[Ununoctium]

I am liking this idea little

instead of units outside the pool costing sp we just make the nth units more expensive per category. so if this si implemented by the pool, a sin going over your pool limit results in a generic reduction of resources per pool. so if you overdo your vehicle pool you get -20 fuel per point over. or over infantry you get -50 mp per point (random numbers but you get the idea)

[crimsonrabbit]

Come to think of it, this idea is not that bad. I like it actually.
I have a ridiculous amount of everything in my company and no penalty for it. Also, I have so much of my reserve pool left with almost all of my advantage tiers in (third and final tier to go). This idea will stop the spam and encourage a well rounded battallion.
However one things comes into question: Will it limit the freedom of the player to choose how he wants his company built? Some players just like to spam certain units in their company to give them a nice color their company if you know what I mean. I for one enjoy focusing most of my infantry pool on Pgrens w/ Incend assault(broken btw); this makes a good counter to airborne players airborne spam which they enjoy focusing on too. Puddin likes his T17 spam/sniper spam because.........well nvm.
Other than puddin's example i hope you understand the point.
Actually, I am quite at a dilemma about this idea.
I will sacrifice a little orphan Lithuanian girl to the EIRR Gods and come back with their reply to this matter.

[Trishut]

Ununoctium, many units is spamable without oversupplying so that would not stop the most of the spam.


I don't like this idea because it takes away the whole purpose with doctrines and doctrine buffs. Why buff vehicle if I can't have many of them?
It also punishes free thinking even more then what the system before the one we use now did.
If you want to have as many units as everyone else you will be forced to play almost with the exacly same units as everyone else.

[MonthlyMayhem]

Bad idea. I mean to be completely honest people who spam pay PP, they lose a single unit they have to pay PP to get it back. Putting multipliers are just a bad idea in general thats like punishing someone to have more then one AB with RR's I mean.. really? And spamming one general type of unit would cost a lot of PP's and won't be able to buy their doctrain abilities. So no stupid multipliers.

[lionel23]

Exactly, why am I going to do Armor company if say you can barely field 2 pershings then because of this incremental cost, now you can't get that pershing. You're punishing the wrong people here with this proposed system.

We want to encourage variety, if we wanted everyone to have the same companies for 'a mix of units', go play Fall of France.  EIRR is about making your own company the way you want, that's why a RESERVE POOL was made to encourage some flexibility that wasn't helped with the old system (you get X amount of INF and Armor, but you can drain the reserves to even out armor or do more infantry).

The only way this solution would fly that, regardless of your numbers, we'll need to cut back on resourcing costs for all units.  Make shermans and M10s half off, so are rangers and stuff, then maybe you'll have my vote on this, because currently you're punishing - at least from a US player standpoint - me for choosing to have a small number of arty that rarely is ever fielded all at once (yeah, 3 is sooo spam XD), and backing them up with rifles and bazooka rangers.  If you're going to hit me on my rangers, bazookas need to be 20 MU each then for riflemen and able to get 2 each.  Then I'll be happy to give up my rangers for 38 double bazooka, tank reaper riflemen, which you just said yourself would have no cost, and if they did have cost you punish players for basic company builds.  There is no other, cheaper infantry than the basic riflemen, unless you want to force people to buy expensive stuff like Engineers who die instantly when their flamers explode.  It's like telling a Wehr player "Oh I'm sorry we punish you for buying 3 P4s, you really need to buy that KT if you don't want to be punished anymore'.

Why don't you suggest a simple hardcap system since you don't seem to applying this equally to all units, just a certain type which would be silly to bring in a new system to deal with a handful of units, unless you plan to hit the basic units and plan to punish players for not making a company how you like it.