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

[CrazyWR]

So it hasn't occured to you yet that the reason some of these spam companies work so well is simply  because the people using them are good players, and not because the companies themselves are actually automatic i-win companies?

[BigDick]

His company has weaknesses, just like any other.

i don't talk about his company only that was just an example
and its the reason why he says that the system sucks....

because its exactly that what he does...he spams units that arnt meant to be spamed...

If a unit being spammed overperforms, thats a issue with the unit and not the availability of it.

its an issue with the availability because doctrine buffs will always make some units better compared to its costs (thats ok and the sense of doctrine buffs) but people want the max out of their company thats why they spam the crap out of that most cost effective unit...
if a unit get spamed its to costeffective...and that can be lowered by increasing the price...this "you buy more but its getting more expensive" increase the price dynamically until someone says ok now the unit is not cost effective enough to get even more of it

[Smokaz]

Well that changes the problem to doctrine buffs making the units too powerful, and with the system proposed here companies that wanted to "spam" units without doctrinal buffs to that unit (that increases its cost-effectiveness) would pay more regardless of doctrine buffs to that unit, since the original outline of this system doesnt take doctrine buffs into its price, just the amount of that unit type being fielded.

If the system was to work it had to then consider doctrine buffs as well, or make all doctrinal buffs cost resources to use.

[tankspirit668]

So it hasn't occured to you yet that the reason some of these spam companies work so well is simply  because the people using them are good players, and not because the companies themselves are actually automatic i-win companies?

That`s a polite version of LEARN TO PLAY, SUCKER !!!1111!! and not an argument. Shurely there`s no I WIN THIS FOR SHURE company build, but this doesn`t change the fact, that there is a bad tendency to spam certain units, without enough penality. The current system doesn`t  hurt spammers  enough, especially not if they are level 8 and have unlocked all doctrinal buffs.

We are maybe getting towards a point where you have to use specialized spammy company builds to cope with other specialized spammy company builds. Which, i think , sucks balls.

[CrazyWR]

I disagree that you have to have a spam company to beat other spammers.  There are plenty of different types of units and unit combinations that all factions have that can be used to defeat someone who repeatedly uses the same type of unit.  However, the problem is that most people tend to not use these units together when facing spammers and thus get overrun. 

As an example, my PE company has 2 50mms, 1 marder, 1 jagd, 3 clowncars, 3 tellers, and 1 command section for AT.  Thats not spam(I don't think), and it does the job pretty well.  However, all of those units have to be supported because of how fragile they are(excepting the jagd, but it also needs to be supported due to no turret).


I didn't mean my previous comment as a shot at you, since I have no clue if you are any good or not, but just to try to reinforce Smokaz' point that just because someone spams a unit doesn't make that unit unbeatable, it just takes equivalent force on the field in the right place to take it out.  People that run spam companies get really good at recognizing things that can shut their spam down and tend to become quite good at avoiding or nullifying these things.  It takes good teamwork to beat spammers, but it its not necessary to counterspam.

[tankspirit668]

@ tankspirit668

But you're taxing EVERY UNIT, do you not see the problem??  Any why not bring up numbers? May makes a very valid point, you'd be killing companies and forcing them to field less and less with your system.  We NEED to talk numbers if you seriously and realistically want to call for this system, you can't just play it off as a good idea without any serious consideration and feedback of what it means when its coded, numbers are put in, and god now we're in for a whole mess of trouble now aren't we?

I don`t see the problem here. I`m just proposing  a pricing system where Unit Variety is rewarded , spamming some unit types get a penality. I can`t bring up numbers, because it would take some time to bring in some numbers, because I`d just have to do it for every single unit. And doing that for a pricing system, which is probably not implemented at all, is just a waste of time. If the devs like the idea and ask me to come up with numbers, I`m glad to to do so.  Your demanding the impossible and I think you know that.  

The problem you're calling for is called individual unit balancing, like price and suppy.  There is a WHOLE FORUM TOPIC about balancing that you could make threads regarding certain units (hint: I think its called EIR Balance Discussion).  I have no problems fighting 9 stugs honestly, and they are easily owned by real tanks or ATGs (or RR infantry, not bazooka in my case).  Notice I was the one who fought Pak, and I'm NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, but you didn't fight him in that replay and now you're complaining how we ALL SPAMMED!  As Smokaz and I have said repeatedly, that replay just shows Pak bringing out the logical counter at the time for the unit.  He didn't call the schwimwagon?  Maybe cause he knew where we were coming and got multiple stugs to COVER HIMSELF while his ALLY PROVIDED UTILTY units? Imagine that!  

The problem we are talking about is a structural problem of the current pricing model, nothing that could change with tweaking some numbers here and there.

Exactly what I'm saying Smokaz!  We have a system in place, adjust price and pool costs accordingly, not redesign an entire game/mod around 1 or 2 perceived 'spam' units.  What next?  Double KTs?  Let's redo the whole system and increase the multiplier while we're at it too.

If combined arms would work that good, people would not building "i spam certain unit companies", the penality for doing that seems neglectable or by spamming they tend to win more games.



 

[MonthlyMayhem]

Tank, who do you know that spams just one unit and thats it. Lots of people run balanced companies, but fielding 5 P4's instead of 3 Panthers for your main battle tanks isn't spamming.. and its not OMGWTF how do I beat them, theres a counter for everything, one unit can take out many, for instance today one of my games. 2 AB riflemen tried to take on a falls squad and got completely raped, one upgraded with BAR's as well. If I use say... AB Riflemen instead of regular riflemen would that be considered spamming a unit type? Or just considered an 'upgrade'. AB Riflemen have a higher survivability but had to pay 13-16 PP to oversupply. I think thats a penalty since roughly ever game I get 6-10 PP, and if one squad dies you have to pay an extra 2 PP due to the pool value. If you make this 'modifier' it'll simply nullify the use of just regular riflemen. The reason why Riflemen are used in mass is because they're effective in masses, and not the greatest type of infantry to field per say, but we can't honestly do that. No unit variety equals mass productions of the only decent ground forces we have..thus comes rifles.

And I'm just using rifles for an example.

[LCII^Bun-Bun]

I'm not one to mix into balancing discussions, but to be honest.

The game is in general pretty balanced, people complain about units being OP er spam, but even those have certain counters...

The problem is wether you have 1 or 5 of those counters if he spams them... well, that is your choice to defend against. Imho, tommie squads can be raping, but a long range P4 and volks or a halftrack (supress) with maybe some grens in it works fine, it's what you have against it what makes most people decide what's OP. 
2 airborne with RR: They use Fireup and rape a P4 of you... Own fault, a P4 might be nice, but it ain't gonna rape inf without proper support, keep some infantry around it if possible, or other vehicles, who'll at least help.

I ain't saying it's perfect, but I am saying that what we have at the moment ain't that bad as you might think. In the beginning, I was scared shitless of Stags and T17's... Nowadays, I just micro my troops well enough to take care of them with the right weapons...

I personally don't think that I really spam units, however, I do seem to stick with some units I know, I think are reliable and versitale: a Panther isn't gonna be raping an infantry rush, and grens with LMG ain't even gonna stop a jeep (Well, maybe that, but still).

Think of tactics to counter them instead of bitching: I have a very stable company who rarely changes builds, but it uses around 4 battle tanks, 4 at guns, 4 volks with upgrades, 6 grens with upgrades. some kind of support weapons, a stug, mostly as soft bonus, and some vanilla volks because I had manpower left.

Not gonna win every game with it, not gonna rape armor companies or immense AT gun spam (my at's simply dont have the range imho, and my inf, unable to use fireup or something alike, is easily pinned / halted).
Still, I am gonna win most games of people who use relative normal companies: if I would be against armor, ajust your company to have some more AT...


Also: remember, most games are 2 v 2 or 3 v 3, teamwork can make big differences. A friendly marder can make huge differences in tank battles at relative long range, while a p4 rushing in can save the same marder 2 min later against zooks.

[Smokaz]

If combined arms would work that good, people would not building "i spam certain unit companies", the penality for doing that seems neglectable or by spamming they tend to win more games

They spam the units they are good with, whats the surprise? Or perhaps they prefer to have less different unit types to manage, or either their infantry play or their armor play sucks. Ive run several companies with little to no fuel used simply because I get more out of my infantry than anything else. Mysthalin likes to spam and float population, not everyone plays the game in the same way.

Who are these secret spamguys creating this outburst of melancholy for better times where everyone cherished the different colours of the rainbow equally?

I personally enjoy the change of pace that a lot of these gimmicks present, and also think my terror and T17 spam companies are quite fun to play, even if they are clearly too powerful.

Also 5 p4s is p4 spam, how much fuel do you have over for other fuel based units if you field 5 p4s in your company? That said, there's nothing wrong with running such a company. Its just a tank after all, you counter it with AT.

[lionel23]

@ tankspirit668

But you're taxing EVERY UNIT, do you not see the problem??  Any why not bring up numbers? May makes a very valid point, you'd be killing companies and forcing them to field less and less with your system.  We NEED to talk numbers if you seriously and realistically want to call for this system, you can't just play it off as a good idea without any serious consideration and feedback of what it means when its coded, numbers are put in, and god now we're in for a whole mess of trouble now aren't we?

I don`t see the problem here. I`m just proposing  a pricing system where Unit Variety is rewarded , spamming some unit types get a penality.

There is a penalty already, you're tripling nerfing (quadruple if it's a doctrine unit as it takes PP) non-Wehr factions because you do not like their variety compared to yours.  There is resource cost (which is what you're doing, so don't even say you're not), Pool cost, PP post and now you want some 4th barrier to purchasing units that really aren't an issue.  You adjust one of these in the current system, not redesign the entire framework for 1 or 2 units that you cannot deal with or you think is spamming when no one else thinks otherwise.  I should call on Wehr to be nerfed in this case with Grens, Volks, and P4s, why the heck should they form the core of any German army? I expect to see armies made up of 95% Pioneers obviously! 

The problem you're calling for is called individual unit balancing, like price and suppy.  There is a WHOLE FORUM TOPIC about balancing that you could make threads regarding certain units (hint: I think its called EIR Balance Discussion).  I have no problems fighting 9 stugs honestly, and they are easily owned by real tanks or ATGs (or RR infantry, not bazooka in my case).  Notice I was the one who fought Pak, and I'm NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, but you didn't fight him in that replay and now you're complaining how we ALL SPAMMED!  As Smokaz and I have said repeatedly, that replay just shows Pak bringing out the logical counter at the time for the unit.  He didn't call the schwimwagon?  Maybe cause he knew where we were coming and got multiple stugs to COVER HIMSELF while his ALLY PROVIDED UTILTY units? Imagine that!  

The problem we are talking about is a structural problem of the current pricing model, nothing that could change with tweaking some numbers here and there.

So what the heck is your system proposing? Unless I've been asleep the last few posts, your system is going to change PRICING on all units on a per-unit basis.  That is the very definition of a unit balance issue unless you're bringing up this system for no reason and you seem very clear in contradicting yourself.  Your system is in effect taxing all units, unless you're exempting units and in that case your system is seriously flawed because if you're going to say these units won't be affected, that's a BALANCE ISSUE for THOSE UNITS, and not a problem with the purchasing system. So either that translates into hard-capping (you're going to reduce say a 5 P4 army to 3, which would be the result regardless of your intent) or making very high triple/quadrule unit cost (MP/MU/FU, PP, Pool Cost, and now this fictional system).  Why don't we have multipliers when you have too many doctrine abilities? Or use any unit you are buffing with a doctrine? By your logic they become too powerful (ahem, balance issue again!) and so if I get a buff that makes my men 20% strong, well maybe that rifle squad needs to be 20% more expensive on top of that too!

Exactly what I'm saying Smokaz!  We have a system in place, adjust price and pool costs accordingly, not redesign an entire game/mod around 1 or 2 perceived 'spam' units.  What next?  Double KTs?  Let's redo the whole system and increase the multiplier while we're at it too.

If combined arms would work that good, people would not building "i spam certain unit companies", the penality for doing that seems neglectable or by spamming they tend to win more games.

I use combined arms, and if you don't and win, you're very good.  If not, well your spam got countered by a company that brought out the right counters, whether through tons of soft counters or a few hard counters.  There is a penalty, I'm sorry if the penalities aren't enough for you, but for many other companies it is when you factor in vet, oversupplying, off-maps, and battle advantages.  I wouldn't even consider myself a spammer as I field, I dunno.... roughly 7 different types of units, so what really are you targetting?  The one armor player with 10 T17s and no heavy armor?  The one player with 50 M3 halftracks?  That must be too powerful because that is SOOOO HARD to counter, being there are so many of them by your logic, but in fact it isn't and good play and a thoughtful build of any company can easily counter it.  If you don't have any form of AT in your army and you get smoked by 2 shermans, well gawd that must be spam because you couldn't stop it and it was so effective, right?  Wrong.  There is a system in place to deal with everything, use it.  If it doesn't seem cost effective for the price/unit, then bring it up as a BALANCE issue.  Or maybe the map was the blame too?  Damn my tank got stuck in a hedge!  Don't try making a complicated and convoluted system for something that isn't an issue to this degree.

[Mysthalin]

You're claiming you want "variety" - over and over again.
Has it occured to you that what you're actually asking for is uniform companies, where everyone has 4 ATGs, 3 Greyhounds, 3 shermans, a howitzer, 7 riflemen and 4 rangers(random numbers just for show) because getting anything over any of those numbers would become retardedly uneconomical?


If anything, you'd completely kill company variety - every single company would be the exact same, with only the off-maps being different.

[BigDick]

no you wont

because after getting from each unit type exactly one you still have many ressources left and have an even choice to get a second sherman or get a second m10 (depends on your personal preference)
there will be always a point where people who like to spam single unit typed think about that it might be better to get different units (cheaper)

all you limit is retard companies like 11 stugs and no other tank or 11 T17 and not much other armor...or companies that have almost only rangers as infantry

[Mysthalin]

So, variety as in I have 2 more M10s than my ally, and my ally has 1 more sherman is good?

I thought that was the reason why we switched availability systems in the first place?

If a unit is being spammed beyond all hell, it's a problem with the unit pricing or it's power in general. Just nerf the unit, not reinvent the bicycle.

[Smokaz]

Btw 7 m3 start owns

[lionel23]

no you wont

because after getting from each unit type exactly one you still have many ressources left and have an even choice to get a second sherman or get a second m10 (depends on your personal preference)
there will be always a point where people who like to spam single unit typed think about that it might be better to get different units (cheaper)

all you limit is retard companies like 11 stugs and no other tank or 11 T17 and not much other armor...or companies that have almost only rangers as infantry

Again as Mys states oh so very clearly, you're reinventing the whole dang bicycle!  You've just named the ONE thing, that is spam of say rangers OR Stugs, a single unit that can have it's own costs adjusted instead of mass-adjusting every unit in the game, are you even thinking of the scope of this?

Yeah there is no penalty for the FIRST choice, but every choice after that you're going to charge more and more, because this multipler is hitting all units.  And those companies are really easy to counter, it's like fielding a company of.. I don't know.. only volks or riflemen.  So now are you saying those are retarded company because they don't meet your very limited definition of 'uniform companies'?  I should not be forced to field 3 ineffective Greyhounds when I rather have that same equivalent in riflemen or an M10 or, god yes maybe I do want that howitzer, can you imagine that players have freedom of choice when it comes to building their companies?

Maybe Bigdick you're the spammer here, ever thought of that?  What if we all in this forum said 'Bigdick, you field way too many MGs and Mortars and volks, we need to limit abusive spam like yours', you'd find that equally as unreasonable as me fielding an ALL INFANTRY BASED ranger/riflemen company.  I chose my risk in this example, saying I'm going to forgo armor to give my infantry army more meat.  What if a heavy tank or a bunch of ostwinds come out?  Yeah I'm royally fucked and I'll have to pray through good skill and luck that my soft counters can deal with those ostwinds before they rape my company, or that mass exploding gun Tiger/KT doesn't instant gib all my men in one shot.

It's called risk vs reward, my reward is a flexible, soft countering unit, my risk is I am very vulnerable to artillery or mass tanks if I do not have support.  Work within the system, and adjust the individual unit balance, as you have clearly show and illustrated it's one or two units.  Do I hear you saying anything about allied 'mortar spam', or 'emplacement spam', or 'LT/Captain' spam, what about engineer spam?  I haven't heard you say anything other than Stugs and T17s, so please tell me why change and charge EVERY UNIT in the company builder when all you're having issues with is ONE UNIT.  Please, show us some justification on why this system should even be considered because all I see is a lack of numbers and one unit being cited to nerf and punish all players for too many unit choices.

[Mysthalin]

Because, lionel, not being able to roll everyone by just spamming paks and MGs is gay - creative thinking and better play should not be rewarded. Being as stiff as a brick with your company that can counter anything is the only way you can ever have fun.

[tankspirit668]

Let`s not pretend this about nerfing certain units, or specific factions. This is a WW2 Scenario, where your a part of a war. Your unit is somehow specialized with a doctrine and corresponding  units and abilities.

The current pricing system favours to max out doctrine abilities for certain units and spam them. Spamming Units is not really addressed there, the penalities seem to be neglectable. This whole Unit Pool System was introduced to address some issues, but it`s  just a artificial crutch , which does not necessarily fits so homogenous in this system here. It`s just another artificial interlayer.

The proposed system would not force you to buy Support Weapons or Armor or Infantry at all, so you would have more freedom on one side, but you have to pay probably a higher price for that. SO you decide do i want to to it or not. That system fits elegant in this system, availability and a mix of units , is not enforced by an artifical unit pools but by nothing else but the pricing, which grabs players every time by the balls when they use a company, with certain units in a higher quantities. Less  specialized company builds get rewarded by generally lower prices.

You can`t stop spam just by price increasing certain units just by the price, or by adding unit pool costs, there will be other units that will be spammed. They only thing that will fix that issue is dynamical pricing.

I understand that people want to use their loved company builds, but this is still a ww2 rts game, you should be able to use all units, but units should be really scarce and you should pay for it a higher price if you want it in higher quantities. This will make this whole ww2 scenario thing way more smooth in my point of view.

I pointed out earlier that EIRR has a long history of spamming units and this spamming history is not a good thing, from my point of view. There was even I think a response, which stated sth like  this is what RTS Games are about. I think COH has the pontential to be not like Command and Conquer 3 where you basically  spam two or three unit types and win games, but this is not really awarded by the current availibility and pricing model. Changing the current pricing to another system is a chance to make things right, to make things fit for  persistent batallions in a war.

[Mysthalin]

1. Please go make a company that WORKS by using JUST 2 unit types. You said 3, so OK, you're allowed 3.

2. Spamming units isn't adressed? So you're saying that there are plenty 30+ airborne and 50+ rifle companies out there? Please, if there were, I'd be behind 75 percent of them.

3. Yes you can. How many companies do you know that feature more than 5 staghounds(as any more than that will cut into your PPs)? How many companies have you heard of that feature 20+ sapper PIATs? Both the pricing, and the availability pools serve as awesome soft-caps to spam. Sure, get 10 T17s/Stags. Enjoy not developing your company.

I understand that people want to use their loved company builds, but this is still a ww2 rts game, you should be able to use all units, but units should be really scarce and you should pay for it a higher price if you want it in higher quantities

I know another good idea. This is a WW2 RTS game set after 1944, so let's imagine the germans are running out of all sorts of supplies. Each time you call on a stormtrooper squad, it has a 50 percent chance to have it's legs amputated due to staying in a pond under freezing weather conditions, and volksgrenadiers only get 2 rifles per squad, with 10 rounds per rifle. I would propose that the KT runs out of fuel after 3 minutes of use (if it doesn't get imobilised due to track damage within them, ofc).

Realism fails, don't bring it up.

[tankspirit668]

...
2. Spamming units isn't adressed? ...

3. ...  Both the pricing, and the availability pools serve as awesome soft-caps to spam. Sure, get 10 T17s/Stags. Enjoy not developing your company.

...
Realism fails, don't bring it up.

The current system does not encourage players to use variety in their company builds. Ther e are availibility Pools so what ? You used up Availibiilty Pool 1 and the Reserve Pool to get your doctrined buffed unit in great quantitiy so your going after another unit which eats another availibility pool. You do that unitl you have all availibility pools maxed out or have no more ressources.  What is the penality for using less types of units and less variety ? Fuck reality, hell yeah, but does this really fit that good in a ww2 war scenario , is this fun or just getting more towards checkers ?


Let`stake a step back and discuss this point here first:

Question  is :Should there be a system in place which favours unity variety instead of unit monotony ?

[MonthlyMayhem]

You keep talking about variety and saying "Theres no more then 2-3 units per  company". If you want I can show you all 3 of my builds and you can analyze that and see that there is more then 2-3 units..
I'm also saying that statement is FALSE. If you want unit variety you're talking about creating new units, sure people get 3 shermans and say 4 hellcats, but its an RTS game, bringing more unit variety into the game would just be saying hey.. Dev's we want you to make more neat units for us to use. Allies only main assault tank thats decent against infantry AND tanks is the Sherman, Hellcat and the M10 have paper thin armor, sure their fast and all but can you blame an allied player who is looking for infantry support to get a sherman or a hellcat? I think  its pretty obvious to that answer. The Sherman is a multi role tank, but basically used for support infantry. We have different units for destroying tanks.. M10 and M18, and complaining about this light vehicle spam, T17s are doctrain specific. I really doubt you'd see an infantry player soak all their munitions to use greyhounds.. Yet alone an armored company who could field better units for cheaper? You're just basically saying "We don't want the allies to have any advantages over the axis so we can pump out lots of shit to counter your one or two units that you have in your army" Soon enough we'll be dealing with really small battalions..