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

[BigDick]

I'm not taking it personal, it just seems you're not reading anyone else's posts is all I'm saying.  And I'm the only one pinpointing units? Again, it's not a problem cause I use a VARIETY of units in my company, and you have yet to illustrate that I'm spamming, and here are several examples of you accusing me of 'pinpointing' units which you have clearly made known in this thread.

you use a variety of units and dont spam?

you used 4620 MP thats half of your company in a single elite infantry unit and talk about variety and not spamming? you can not be taken serious

[lionel23]

Of course you know my company right?

[MonthlyMayhem]

*Yawn* you guys we're having the same conversation, tons of people had pointed out potential flaws in this system. If you had the chance would you field... Rangers over rifles? Tyeah.. Or AB rifles over vanilla rifles? Tyeah.. Sure its spamming but couldn't you say that this is variety.. Considering all armor companies field just regular infantry? They're put in the game for a reason, and you do have to pay quite a lot of PP to field say.. 14 rangers. Its like saying well, I'd rather field Grenadiers over Volks.. so my majority of my infantry will be Grens. Well yeah duh, it'd make sense. You're paying more  resources for a better type of unit.

[tankspirit668]

....
Your system is still seriously flawed, and I do not see how this can all simply be addressed by the Balance Discussion subforum for those individual 'spammy' units that you seem to complain about instead of messing with a system that affects ALL UNITS in ALL DOCTRINES.  It makes no sense to me or the many other players who have posted to illustrate, but you think everyone is having the points 'go over their heads' when it seems clear to me you're not listening to the other side either.

T17s being spammed too much? Let's cap shermans!  That is your line of discussion and that logically does not make sense.  Look at what the devs did with that... they upped the resource and pop cost on it... and you know what it did? Put less T17s on the field at the expense of other things.  I would expect that same line to apply to Wehr, if you bring out 3 KTs, you better not be able to field any other armor with it, you're picking a strength and taking a weakness, that's what doctrine choices, company composition, and player playstyle/use comes in on.  Learn to play the game, learn the best units to counter the various 'spam', and adapt, don't force others to play YOUR game because our companies are not YOUR company.  Simple as that.

PLease don`t try to get any personal things in this discussion here. I listen to others, and I have no problem to tell if I conclude I am wrong. If you point out where I didn`t answer to some aspects or if you have questions, just mention it i will try to explain it.
 

The current system has some fundamental flaws:

• People spam units that are most cost efficient / efficient. If you  increase costs for UNIT A, ok then it`s UNIT B what will be spammed then, because it the most cost efficient unit then.   So in the end it will lead to that all unit which are most cost effective for their bang get a price increase. This is a fundamental problem of the system
• The current availibility system does not really work that well. EIR(R) has a long history of spam now and we already have the second availibility system rework in place. But the main reason of implementing an availibility system is still not implemented, to reward people for variety in their company builds.
• The Doctrine Abilities and buffs make some units more efficient, so spamming it is encouraged without enough counterweight.
• And one other thing is High Level Accounts don`t need PP so much , so spamming really Units beyond the Availibility Pool is not really punished here at all. Especially with UNIT C, which dies rarely it is a valid point.  It hurts just if you have lost a unit and that is wrong.
• The current system creates artificial interlayer called  unit pools, which is way too general to encourage more variety in company builds. I consider this as an corset unnecessary and inconvenient.

The new system would take care of that.

Lets drop the Unit Availibilty Pool Thing. Lets just the costs of a unit represent scarcity and availibility of units. If you want to make a company consisting only out of MGs, shure no problem you could do that with the proposed system, total freedom, but the MGS would cost more and more after every purchase.

I`m posting the example again.


So basically you have a buff for lets say TANK A so lets put it in Company Build 6 times:

Price Modifier is 1.1 for maybe TANK A and TANK B, who knows

Let`s say this will be the pricing table for TANK A and TANK B:

Manpower   Ammo   Fuel
400           60            200
440        66            220
484           72,6            242
532,4           79,86            266,2
585,64   87,846   292,82
644,204   96,6306   322,102  


So you can buy 6 pieces of TANK A for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
3086,244   462,9366   1543,122

Alternative with more variety:

You get 3 Pieces of TANK A and 3 Pieces of TANK B for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
2.648    397,2            1.324


So you decide if you want to get more TANK A for a higher overall price or if you want to balance it out for overall lower price.

So yoou get rewarded by lower pricing at all, if you have a better unit mix.

[MonthlyMayhem]

But then you'd have just an astronomical pile of resources just sitting there..

[tankspirit668]

But then you'd have just an astronomical pile of resources just sitting there..

This is not meant to be a whole company build , just an example for purchasing some fictional units. Or what are you refering to ?

[MonthlyMayhem]

I mean if people don't want to spend their a lot of extra resources they're going to buy the minimal amount of each unit..thus creating an even less of a variety, because every company would have the exact same units except for the doctrinal units.. So by trying to eliminate spam you're causing just less of each unit, and would most likely all companies would be more or like... the same, which would result in smaller companies and either would have lots of resources left over and can't invest anything it into anything due to the multipliers.

[CrazyWR]

Tank, what you need to understand is people prefer having variety in the macro sense as opposed to variety in the micro sense.  Having every company with variety leads to similar(if not identical) builds from all companies, thus eliminating variety throughout the whole.  Having less variety per company, but many different types of spam as you call it, leads to variety throughout the whole, and thus more enjoyable gameplay through not facing similar companies every single game and losing interest due to repetitiveness.

[Ununoctium]

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?

Here is the problem with buffing infantry or vehicles. you try to get maximum buff but some people will end up with more buff than others just because of the availability system.

[lionel23]

Lets drop the Unit Availibilty Pool Thing. Lets just the costs of a unit represent scarcity and availibility of units. If you want to make a company consisting only out of MGs, shure no problem you could do that with the proposed system, total freedom, but the MGS would cost more and more after every purchase.

And why should people be punished for taking just MGs?  His disadvantage is he has no AT or armor.  If I choose to run a pure infantry company, it's my choice and I take the respective penalties of not having vehicles, armor, support teams, snipers, ATGs, etc.  You're again effectively double punishing players and restricting choice.

[threeheadedsexbeasttrysUS]

If ever, the cost increase should at least be exponential and not linear.

Just pointing it out.

[tankspirit668]

If ever, the cost increase should at least be exponential and not linear.

Just pointing it out.

Yes it is this way.

[puddin]

Tank, what you need to understand is people prefer having variety in the macro sense as opposed to variety in the micro sense.  Having every company with variety leads to similar(if not identical) builds from all companies, thus eliminating variety throughout the whole.  Having less variety per company, but many different types of spam as you call it, leads to variety throughout the whole, and thus more enjoyable gameplay through not facing similar companies every single game and losing interest due to repetitiveness.

Buffs to only certain units is what makes armies very similar.  Airborne buffs airborne, Infantry buffs infantry, Armor buffs armor.  Axis buff multiiple units and across certain things so you can build more balenced build, But HEavy support in terror means you spam support wepons...  


The buffs given to units makes them buy more of them.

Penalizing people for building a company a certain way is irritating.

The OLD System with individual units did exactly 3hat you descride, Every uunit has its supply, and if you bought to many you were forced to pay PPS that grew exp[oentially when you went into the Oversupply ddoubling the PP cost.  

People complained abotu it so much they came up with the best of both worlds.  

They group certain units together and make it the same, just with groups not individual units...  

So in essence, everyone wants the old system, they all say they hated back, that made it a very confining and limiting style of play, forcing everyone to have multiple units even if they didn;t want anything to do with themmm

[CrazyWR]

if by everyone you mean tankspirit, bigdick, and aloha, then yes.  Otherwise, no.

[tankspirit668]

...
creating an even less of a variety, because every company would have the exact same units except for the doctrinal units.. So by trying to eliminate spam you're causing just less of each unit, and would most likely all companies would be more or like... the same, which would result in smaller companies and either would have lots of resources left over and can't invest anything it into anything due to the multipliers.
...

I don`t think it would be the case. Not everybody is maxing out the  most efficient / cost efficient  units at the moment. If everybody would really do that every Doctrinal Company would look exactly the same, which is not case. So the company builds would not be exactly the same, extreme builds will still be possible, even extremer builds that with the current availability system, but it comes with a price. The question is is it worth it for you or not? Every player likes other units, like for example snipers, not everyone uses them. And it will still be the same after it.
They wouldn`t have a lot of ressources over, you will always find some units to use the remaining ressources for. But the tendency to have a little ressources left over would  probably higher , no question about that, you are right there. Still I think this small drawback jwould ustify this major overhaul.

....
 and thus more enjoyable gameplay through not facing similar companies every single game and losing interest due to repetitiveness.

As I stated above the companies wouldn`t be the same, there are people not spamming most efficeint units at the moment, there would be probably spam tactics, I`m quite shure of that,  that will work after the overhaul of the availibiitly and pricing system , but with a balanced company build you would have a better chance against spam, because spam would come with a price to pay.

About loosing interest: Once upon a time I met a german guy o vent , he watched some replays beforheand , read the tutorials and so he plplayed his first game against me and I was a bad boy using a tank spam company, stomped him and this guy was so pissed off. He was this mod is Bullshit, we said bye bye and he was never to be be seen again in EIR.  I personally think the current system, favouring spam , because of the missing counterwieght to spam and doctrine abilities is costing this coh mod players.

[CrazyWR]

Do you not understand the fact that the counterweight to spam is that it is extremely predictable and easy to counter?

[tankspirit668]

I`m summing things  up folks:

The current system has some fundamental flaws:

• People spam units that are most cost efficient / efficient. If you  increase costs for UNIT A, ok then it`s UNIT B what will be spammed then, because it the most cost efficient unit then.   So in the end it will lead to that all unit which are most cost effective for their bang get a price increase. This is a fundamental problem of the system.
• The current availibility system does not really work that well. EIR(R) has a long history of spam now and we already have the second availibility system rework in place. But the main reason of implementing an availibility system is still not implemented, to reward people for variety in their company builds.
• The Doctrine Abilities and buffs make some units more efficient, so spamming it is encouraged without enough counterweight implemented in the system.
• And one other thing is High Level Accounts don`t need PP so much , so spamming really Units beyond the Availibility Pool is not really punished here at all. Especially with UNIT C, which dies rarely it is a valid point. So there is an imbalance, Level 8 Players can spam more and more cost efficent units ( because of doctrine buffs ) more easy than low level accounts , what is not necessary.  High Level Players already enjoy Doctrine Ablities, UNits and more ressources.
• The current system creates artificial interlayer called  unit pools, which is way too general to encourage more variety in company builds. I consider this as an corset unnecessary and inconvenient.

• Tactical Gameplay gets more and more into the background, because of this situation.  
• Measures to fight spam don`t cut it - if most efficent / cost efficent unit is increased in pricing, then the most efficent / price efficient unit will be just another type.

The new system would take care of that - I`m mentioning some points here:

• Most Cost effective Units ( with Doctrine Buffs ) can`t be maxed out in this large numbers, because units in larger quantity getting more exxpnsive. Grade can vary from unit to unit, representing scarcity.
• Tactical Gameplay is encouraged and playing with a units mix is encouraged.  Tactics should more count than now, now it`s somehow favouring  units.
• A Counterweight to the increased cost effectiveness of doctrinal buffed units is established.
• The gap  between High Level Players, who  can afford to purchase   cost efficent units in greater numbers is narrowed.
• The proposed system would be more flexible, more flexible  company builds allowed, spamming units comes with a price though, as there would be no more unit pools.  
• The proposed  Avalability System would be easyier to understand. Availibility is represented by price and only price. Price Increase cana be represented in Perccent.  

Lets drop the Unit Availibilty Pool Thing. Lets just the costs of a unit represent scarcity and availibility of units. If you want to make a company consisting only out of MGs, shure no problem you could do that with the proposed system, total freedom, but the MGS would cost more and more after every purchase.

I`m posting the example again.


So basically you have a buff for lets say TANK A so lets put it in Company Build 6 times:

Price Modifier is 1.1 for maybe TANK A and TANK B, who knows

Let`s say this will be the pricing table for TANK A and TANK B:

Manpower   Ammo   Fuel
400           60            200
440        66            220
484           72,6            242
532,4           79,86            266,2
585,64   87,846   292,82
644,204   96,6306   322,102  


So you can buy 6 pieces of TANK A for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
3086,244   462,9366   1543,122

Alternative with more variety:

You get 3 Pieces of TANK A and 3 Pieces of TANK B for a total of:
Manpower   Ammo        Fuel
2.648    397,2            1.324


So you decide if you want to get more TANK A for a higher overall price or if you want to balance it out for overall lower price.

So yoou get rewarded by lower pricing at all, if you have a better unit mix.[/list]

[tankspirit668]

Do you not understand the fact that the counterweight to spam is that it is extremely predictable and easy to counter?

Yes it is, but it doesn`t help you in situations like, facing two players, having the same doctrine , same buffs, spamming same units. If you know these guys, played them beforehand  , know their company builds you can put more hard counters to the spammed units, yes.

But you have to modify your company first for this. Sucks big time, lets Pricing coupe with that. The two players can spam their stuff , getting it in larger numbers, but it gets pricier that it`s now. So it can still work , but the two players have not such an easy game, because they are fighting the battle against their attrition then.

No reason for the counterweight not to begin already on the company building screen.

Tactics should count, combined arms should count, (spamming) units should not / less .

[Killer344]

The availability system is working as intended, (it only needs some minor tweaks), if a unit is getting too good with doctrine buffs/vet, we nerf what's making it OP. We wouldn't rework the availability system for just a few units.

[tankspirit668]

The availability system is working as intended, (it only needs some minor tweaks), if a unit is getting too good with doctrine buffs/vet, we nerf what's making it OP. We wouldn't rework the availability system for just a few units.

It`s not about some OP units , its about structural problems with the current availibiltity  system, which can not be addressed by changing numbers here and there. I think it`s worth to change it to sth like i proposed I really think this mod as a whole  mod  would benefit from it`s worth it.

Increasing the cost for the most efficient / cost efficient UNIT A will not change anything. Stats are changed, but there is UNIT B, which is then the most efficent / most cost effecient unit, that can be spammed. After a while it is said that UNIT A is not cost efficient ( beacause it was nerfed ) , so UNIT A gets buffed again and UNIT A is the most cost efficent unit again.
In the end you will nerf all good units, in pricing doctrine ablities, whatever, making a whole faction not viable at all. You can`t balance spam with the current system , you can`t reward players using tactics instead of certain types just  units in numbers.  Hard Caps are not a solution for this problem either, it woill just lead to static company builds and inflexibility.