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

[Mysthalin]

Name 10 units that become OP when spammed, but are not OP when used in sparse numbers.
Can't? Ok, name 5. No, jeep spam isn't OP. No, not even with OBM. That's back in vEiR.

[puddin]

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.

So your telling me that with the current system not everyone is using the most buffed units... So they are spamming the less effected units... And your complaining because they are idiots? 

Are you makign my point for me or am i just not reading that right because i read it saying.... 

Not everyone uses the same units when they pic a doctrins, Different players are usign different units makign diffrerent company builds thus creating diversity amunst players while keeping that player happy makign them cater their company to their playstyle...

Which is the best of everyworld

[Mysthalin]

You do realise....
That...
Doctrines have more than 1 ability path, and thus, company build ascociated with it?

[lionel23]

He's still advocating all companies be the same though with identical builds... 

[Mysthalin]

Hey, let's play chess! It's better than checkers. More units!

[tankspirit668]

Name 10 units that become OP when spammed, but are not OP when used in sparse numbers.
Can't? Ok, name 5. No, jeep spam isn't OP. No, not even with OBM. That's back in vEiR.

As I said this is not about spamming units, that become OP, it`s spamming units that are too cost efficent and are spammed beacuase of it.

[tankspirit668]

He's still advocating all companies be the same though with identical builds... 

Why do you think that there would be only one company build ? Not everybody is using most (cost) efficient units in very gret numbers. There are some units, where some players are very good with and some just suck .
The proposed system would allow more variety than the current system regarding company builds.

[tankspirit668]

So your telling me that with the current system not everyone is using the most buffed units... So they are spamming the less effected units... And your complaining because they are idiots? 

Are you makign my point for me or am i just not reading that right because i read it saying.... 

Not everyone uses the same units when they pic a doctrins, Different players are usign different units makign diffrerent company builds thus creating diversity amunst players while keeping that player happy makign them cater their company to their playstyle...

Which is the best of everyworld

Nope , I`m just saying in this current system certain units in large quantities are favoured way too much  instead of tactics and combined arms, and yes not everyone does that. And`due to that fact, not everybody will have the same company builds with the proposed system. ANd you have way more freedom with the proposed system, than in the current system.
 

[tankspirit668]

He's still advocating all companies be the same though with identical builds... 

It would not be the case, see answer 114 of tis threat.

[lionel23]

4 posts in a row? Learn to condense your posts, and you 'replied' to mine like twice like you're arguing with yourself.

And to answer your previous remarks, right now we do have variety.  Infantry players can use howies or rangers or riflemen or light vehicles/tanks with the current doctrine choices, and some companies again have no howies and some have a lot, again its player preference and I don't know how many people must tell you this but you're advocating everyone make the same company or keep the current variety of units.  People should not be forced to make the exact same companies which is what you're advocating on a penalty system that say if you take more than 2 units you get increased cost penalties.

So now everyone will have 2 engineers, 2 riflemen, 2 rangers, 2 howies, 2 shermans, 2 M3 halftracks, 2 quads, etc to get the most bang out of their buck, which is what you're clearly stated so many times you want.  I myself like freedom of choice and variety and if I want 8 57mm in my company, by god I'm taking 8.  The same if I want to run an M1 carbine company and want shit loads of riflemen, I should not be forced to take 'jeeps' because you say so.  Simple as that.

[puddin]

So your telling me that with the current system not everyone is using the most buffed units... So they are spamming the less effected units... And your complaining because they are idiots? 

Are you makign my point for me or am i just not reading that right because i read it saying.... 

Not everyone uses the same units when they pic a doctrins, Different players are usign different units makign diffrerent company builds thus creating diversity amunst players while keeping that player happy makign them cater their company to their playstyle...

Which is the best of everyworld

Nope , I`m just saying in this current system certain units in large quantities are favoured way too much  instead of tactics and combined arms, and yes not everyone does that. And`due to that fact, not everybody will have the same company builds with the proposed system. ANd you have way more freedom with the proposed system, than in the current system.
 

Explain to me how you would get more freedom with the system you propose.

I think half the time tank, You don;t explain or argue your point you simply say, No, its that that way and move on to making another comment or reiderate the same thing you have said over and over.

So make an arguement  how you get more Unique armies with your suggestion and i will respond.

[tankspirit668]

4 posts in a row? Learn to condense your posts, and you 'replied' to mine like twice like you're arguing with yourself.

And to answer your previous remarks, right now we do have variety.  Infantry players can use howies or rangers or riflemen or light vehicles/tanks with the current doctrine choices, and some companies again have no howies and some have a lot, again its player preference and I don't know how many people must tell you this but you're advocating everyone make the same company or keep the current variety of units.  People should not be forced to make the exact same companies which is what you're advocating on a penalty system that say if you take more than 2 units you get increased cost penalties.

So now everyone will have 2 engineers, 2 riflemen, 2 rangers, 2 howies, 2 shermans, 2 M3 halftracks, 2 quads, etc to get the most bang out of their buck, which is what you're clearly stated so many times you want.  I myself like freedom of choice and variety and if I want 8 57mm in my company, by god I'm taking 8.  The same if I want to run an M1 carbine company and want shit loads of riflemen, I should not be forced to take 'jeeps' because you say so.  Simple as that.

You won`t be forced to buy anything in certain quantities, you will have more freedom wih your comany builds than currently, If you want to / can affored to  pay the price. There are threads already opened  here in this forum  where the gameplayof EIRR  is compared to Warcraft3. 

[puddin]

You won`t be forced to buy anything in certain quantities, you will have more freedom wih your comany builds than currently, If you want to / can affored to  pay the price.

tell me how its different from the current system....

[tankspirit668]

You won`t be forced to buy anything in certain quantities, you will have more freedom wih your comany builds than currently, If you want to / can affored to  pay the price.

tell me how its different from the current system....

Benefits of the porposed Vailability System:

• 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.  

Unit Availibilty Pool Thing gets dropped . 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]

The current system is :

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

Proposed  system is:

• Costs Of Unit
• Cost Multiplier

[MonthlyMayhem]

No cost multipliers. Paying PP is good enough. If people spam one unit, it'll have a weakness. Every company will pretty much look the same because they're going be going cost effective.. The availability system is fine how it is. People that loose say like... a ranger squad and their infantry say is at like -26, they're going to have to pay around 4 PP to replace that squad, and most games only give 8-10 PP.

[lionel23]

Well Tankspirit668, your example you give is still seriously flawed as it goes against what you've been arguing for, let me demonstrate:

You won`t be forced to buy anything in certain quantities, you will have more freedom wih your comany builds than currently, If you want to / can affored to  pay the price.

Current system already does that... it's called pool costs and PP cost...

• 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.

So what?  So if my most cost-effective unit to countering an MG, with my playstyle, is using mobile, versatile infantry squads, I should get punished for this becauase as an Infantry player, who relies on infantry, I shouldn't be able to do that?  What else can I do? Flank with a slow moving, short-ranged machine gun or charge engineers at it?  Why should the basic foot infantry be taxed under your suggestion when most companies fielded LOTS of infantry?

• Tactical Gameplay is encouraged and playing with a units mix is encouraged.  Tactics should more count than now, now it`s somehow favouring  units.

I mix riflemen and rangers with tank support and artillery, covers all my bases there.  So you're saying you don't want people to use their only infantry they can field, to not use artillery for support, and to rely on paper-thin tank destroyers to charge head-on into German lines?  Axis have a lot more choices in regards to this compared to the allies who only get 1-2 types of mainline units they can field in sufficient numbers due to faction balance.  US is all about versatile single units that could be upgraded to tackle a range of problems/opponents, while Axis generally can have specific counters (Ostind for infantry, Panther for tanks, KCH for AI duties, etc).  What you're asking for is everyone to use one of every unit to satisfy your notion of 'mix'.

• A Counterweight to the increased cost effectiveness of doctrinal buffed units is established.

So I can take non-doctrine units that are getting prohibitively more expensive than my  'effective' doctrine unit who gets the job done... great counterweight.  If I'm going to be punished for not taking one of everything, I may as well do airborne spam since that I'm going to be punished/taxed anyway along with resource costs.  Again this issue is a cost per unit type, not a rebalancing of the entire system.

• The gap  between High Level Players, who  can afford to purchase   cost efficent units in greater numbers is narrowed.

How exactly?  Now you've widen the gap where high level players can afford to 'spam' their doctrine units, while low level players can't afford to because of lack of resource advantages.  In addition, by forcing players to conform to what you ask for, I could theoretically make a 10 sherman company and bum rush you with all the tanks on the field at one time.  The 'balanced' player, having only taken in this instance 2 AT guns due to prohibitive cost increases from your system, is now more vulnerable to spam.  What you're looking for is a unit cost balance, not a system balance.

• 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. 

More flexible?  I've already proven it's more restrictive.  Say if you make any unit choice selection over 2 to be considered 'spam', then all players will be forced to take 2 of every unit to get the most bang out of their buck before having to take the penalty system, which is also aggravated by restricted resources.  If there was unlimited MP and FUEL and MU, then it wouldn't be an issue but already we are limited by that, pop cap, PP, and now this?  If I want to run a howitzer company, then I want to run it.  If I want to run a pure infantry company with no artillery and allow teammates who have access to way better artillery than I (like RCA or Airborne, for example), then why should I be forced to pick your choices? Just because you THINK it's all-around average and thus easier to counter?  Please I want to make you take 2 Kets as a mandatory troop choice.

• The proposed  Avalability System would be easyier to understand. Availibility is represented by price and only price. Price Increase cana be represented in Perccent. 

I find the current system very easy to understand, not sure what your problem is.  Your system sounds confusing itself just like how when you look at unit stats that say.. a Rifleman squad gets a 25% HP buff, then another thing gives them 20% HP.  You think that equates to 45% HP, but you'd be wrong as Bob has pointed to me because it'll be based off the first cost.  So in this case those two buffs combined would give the squad a total of 50% more HP and not 45%, so your system would take some sitting down and calculating the costs to get the real costs, while the current one is 'go over 4 supply, pay 4 pp'; simple, direct, and straight-forward.

Unit Availibilty Pool Thing gets dropped . 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.

This seems to counter this statement in that you're punishing people for trying out different builds or strategies:

• 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. 

Next is this....

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

Problem with this is this example and why it is flawed is because unit selections are not equal across the board.  US have access to one armored tank, Brits have 1 (the cromwell) and access to 2 doctrine tanks (1/3rd of their total company choices).  Axis on the other hand have Stugs, P4s, Panthers, PV IST, and 3 Doctrine heavy tanks (available to half their company choices).

Now if that isn't a good example, let's do infantry.  US has 1 main non-doctrine combat infantry, Brits have 3 main non-doctrine combat infantry (tommy, sapper, and recon), as well as 4 doctrine infantry (commandoes, airborne and airborne rifles, and rangers).  Axis on the other hand have 4 main non-doctrine combat units (volks, grens, PGs, KCH), and 5 doctrine combat infantry(storms, luft, falls, falls vet, assault grens).  Also taking into account artillery/support choices, allies have a total of 2 non-doctrine artillery (mortar teams for each faction) and 6 doctrine artillery pieces (3 of which is in RCA, the 105mm, calliope, and AVRE if you want to consider that artillery).  Axis on the otherhand have 3 non-doctrine artillery (long range/uber suppression nebs, long range and accurate mortar team, or non-counterable Mortar HT with instant killing flame rounds for weapon teams) and 3 doctrine artillery pieces (hummel, stuka hotch, stuka HT)

So right off the bat, you're punishing allied players for not fielding enough variety of units due to their lower unit selection when compared to their axis counterpart, and in addition you want to limit the doctrine choices for allies because all the items that make us unique and add more to our company are doctrine locked... right....

[tankspirit668]

Well Tankspirit668, your example you give is still seriously flawed as it goes against what you've been arguing for, let me demonstrate:

You won`t be forced to buy anything in certain quantities, you will have more freedom wih your comany builds than currently, If you want to / can affored to  pay the price.

Current system already does that... it's called pool costs and PP cost...

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.
Yu have to pay PPs only after a Unit died ... also not a very good couNTerweight to DocTrine abilities.

• 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.

So what?  So if my most cost-effective unit to countering an MG, with my playstyle, is using mobile, versatile infantry squads, I should get punished for this becauase as an Infantry player, who relies on infantry, I shouldn't be able to do that?  What else can I do? Flank with a slow moving, short-ranged machine gun or charge engineers at it?  Why should the basic foot infantry be taxed under your suggestion when most companies fielded LOTS of infantry?

I don`t know where you draw ths conclusions from, I didn`t propose any numbers here, so I don`t know why you think you would not be able to do so.

• Tactical Gameplay is encouraged and playing with a units mix is encouraged.  Tactics should more count than now, now it`s somehow favouring  units.

...
 Axis have a lot more choices in regards to this compared to the allies who only get 1-2 types of mainline units they can field in sufficient numbers due to faction balance.  US is all about versatile single units that could be upgraded to tackle a range of problems/opponents, while Axis generally can have specific counters (Ostind for infantry, Panther for tanks, KCH for AI duties, etc).  What you're asking for is everyone to use one of every unit to satisfy your notion of 'mix'.

It would not be enforced and you would have mor efrredom with your comany builds then now.

• A Counterweight to the increased cost effectiveness of doctrinal buffed units is established.

So I can take non-doctrine units that are getting prohibitively more expensive than my  'effective' doctrine unit who gets the job done... great counterweight.  If I'm going to be punished for not taking one of everything, I may as well do airborne spam since that I'm going to be punished/taxed anyway along with resource costs.  Again this issue is a cost per unit type, not a rebalancing of the entire system.

Why do you think that ? Every unit will be affacted by increased costs after each ourchase, the question is how steep this price icrease would be.

• The gap  between High Level Players, who  can afford to purchase   cost efficent units in greater numbers is narrowed.

How exactly?  Now you've widen the gap where high level players can afford to 'spam' their doctrine units, while low level players can't afford to because of lack of resource advantages.  In addition, by forcing players to conform to what you ask for, I could theoretically make a 10 sherman company and bum rush you with all the tanks on the field at one time.  The 'balanced' player, having only taken in this instance 2 AT guns due to prohibitive cost increases from your system, is now more vulnerable to spam.  What you're looking for is a unit cost balance, not a system balance.

Yes but tanks would probably get a quite steep prce increase, so It would be very possible that you cannot afford 10 shermans. And yes as a high Level Player you still have more ressources, but the gap between hig level accounts and new accounts is not soo wide like it is now. I don`t  know why you are thinking that players can just afford 2 PAKs. The gap is more narrow that at the moment. Yes Ressource Advantages are there, but no PP Pool, which is overflowing For High Level Accounters. And therefore I would say it`s more balanced.

• 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.  

More flexible?  I've already proven it's more restrictive.  Say if you make any unit choice selection over 2 to be considered 'spam', then all players will be forced to take 2 of every unit to get the most bang out of their buck before having to take the penalty system, which is also aggravated by restricted resources.  If there was unlimited MP and FUEL and MU, then it wouldn't be an issue but already we are limited by that, pop cap, PP, and now this?  If I want to run a howitzer company, then I want to run it.  If I want to run a pure infantry company with no artillery and allow teammates who have access to way better artillery than I (like RCA or Airborne, for example), then why should I be forced to pick your choices? Just because you THINK it's all-around average and thus easier to counter?  Please I want to make you take 2 Kets as a mandatory troop choice.

Where did you prove it`s more restrective ? There would be no enforcement of choice.

• The proposed  Avalability System would be easyier to understand. Availibility is represented by price and only price. Price Increase cana be represented in Perccent.  

I find the current system very easy to understand, not sure what your problem is.  Your system sounds confusing itself just like how when you look at unit stats that say.. a Rifleman squad gets a 25% HP buff, then another thing gives them 20% HP.  You think that equates to 45% HP, but you'd be wrong as Bob has pointed to me because it'll be based off the first cost.  So in this case those two buffs combined would give the squad a total of 50% more HP and not 45%, so your system would take some sitting down and calculating the costs to get the real costs, while the current one is 'go over 4 supply, pay 4 pp'; simple, direct, and straight-forward.

Where did I state that 25% and 20% Buff gives 45% more HP ? O_o. Why is a system easier to understand when there is a unit pool PP Costs for Unit easier to understand than just costs of a unit ?

Unit Availibilty Pool Thing gets dropped . 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.

This seems to counter this statement in that you're punishing people for trying out different builds or strategies:

Nope it would not. Look at the forums, there are people comparing gameplay of eir to Warcraft3. IN the revert back to VEIR are some nice statements about the situiation that units seem to matter more than tactics  

• 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.  

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

Problem with this is this example and why it is flawed is because unit selections are not equal across the board.  US have access to one armored tank, Brits have 1 (the cromwell) and access to 2 doctrine tanks (1/3rd of their total company choices).  Axis on the other hand have Stugs, P4s, Panthers, PV IST, and 3 Doctrine heavy tanks (available to half their company choices).

Now if that isn't a good example, let's do infantry.  US has 1 main non-doctrine combat infantry, Brits have 3 main non-doctrine combat infantry (tommy, sapper, and recon), as well as 4 doctrine infantry (commandoes, airborne and airborne rifles, and rangers).  Axis on the other hand have 4 main non-doctrine combat units (volks, grens, PGs, KCH), and 5 doctrine combat infantry(storms, luft, falls, falls vet, assault grens).  Also taking into account artillery/support choices, allies have a total of 2 non-doctrine artillery (mortar teams for each faction) and 6 doctrine artillery pieces (3 of which is in RCA, the 105mm, calliope, and AVRE if you want to consider that artillery).  Axis on the otherhand have 3 non-doctrine artillery (long range/uber suppression nebs, long range and accurate mortar team, or non-counterable Mortar HT with instant killing flame rounds for weapon teams) and 3 doctrine artillery pieces (hummel, stuka hotch, stuka HT)

So right off the bat, you're punishing allied players for not fielding enough variety of units due to their lower unit selection when compared to their axis counterpart, and in addition you want to limit the doctrine choices for allies because all the items that make us unique and add more to our company are doctrine locked... right....

This was aswerded in reply 21 :

...
and to say US will get punished because they have just rifles and not volks and grens is bullshit because

- e.g. cost modifier for riflemen 1.05 for volks 1.1 and for grens 1.1

e.g. getting 6 rifles 1.05^5 last riflemen = 33% more expensive than the basic price
getting 6 grens 1.1^6  last gren 77% more costly

getting 3 volks and 3 grens last gren/volks 1.1^3= 33% more expensive

[Mysthalin]

One question.
Why do you think that people will LIKE doing university level/A level maths while building their companies?

[Two]

because maths is fun actually, well it is when your good at it xD

[Mysthalin]

I'm quite good at maths, and I like it, thus I have 7 A level Maths lessons a week, and intending to study it in university too (economics).
I still don't like doing mental calculations like : 190 * (1.05)^11 on my free time. For one good reason - it's my free time, not a maths lesson.
And I severely doubt most people are as adept at mental maths as I am.