Doctrine buffs that have cost versus free increases in performance

[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

[Unkn0wn]

Sounds too much like OMG.

To be honest, it adds a negative feel to the doctrine unlocks when on top of buff you also get a nerf.
It's much more enjoyable when you only get buffs. That being said, it's important the buffs are kept marginal to prevent doctrine abilities from disturbing balance.

[Smokaz]

(Already adresses the other stuff above this quote)

I'll use my company for example to illustrate.  My entire company is focused around taking out tanks, and I use basic riflemen for AI.  By making TR cost something, I'll just remove the handful of BARs and maybe some stickies to not adjust my force composition.  It thereby doesn't reduce my 'spam' at all but just means I can field more riflemen as I'll now have fewer upgrades to put in my troops so hence I'll get more men to compensate (ie if you only had 1 riflemen in your army fulled upgraded, you'd have to buy a 2nd one to fully upgrade him for resource, and I restrict myself on riflemen based on upgrades like BAR/bazooka pairs and whatnot).  So if I cant get my pairs, I'll just buy more and more basic riflemen to take out your even fewer buffed, elite troops, you kind of get what I'm saying?

Personally I thought carbines was so-so at best when you compare them to ferocity terror LMGs, which rambo their way to victory! Heh.

But seriously, you go and upgrade your fewer men, I don't take M1s, I'll out-attrition you thru use of regular men and numbers (like how end game mass volks come onto the field, and I've had SMG rangers surprisingly beaten in green cover by basic volks charging them in mass, hence why I dont take too many SMGs anymore and use the extra ammo to field more rangers for more men/life).

And in the carbines example, bazookas are a crap weapon already, he is sacrificing superior AT from Tank Reapers to get mediocre bazookas and to buff his AI capabilities, just like taking TR nerfs your AI power for a company going down that path, isn't that the tradeoff in the choice?  Otherwise all T4s should become open so we can have more options to play with in terms of having to buy everything or any one thing anyways, no?

And spam is only effective if you can't counter it, which for me it usually isn't the case.  And the things that can be remotely spammed to give me problems? Say 4 snipers on the field at once, tough for infantry to counter, so this new system would not stop that.  Also, would it be considered 'spam' when two squads, both 1 man grens with LMGs, can singlehanded rape 5+ riflesquads with M1s?  You have to spam to deal with some of that higher vet + doctrine stuff situations like that, and given the cheap cost of doing 1 man squads, Two in this instance will need 10 squads of regular rifles to just be able to match the 1 man squad, as I've had trouble even with DOUBLE SMG RANGERS at VET2 or higher to take on medkit single gren squads in cover, while they are being hit with stun nades and break stun to rapid burst and instant rape the rangers.

Extreme example, I know, but you'll now eventually get to a point where a single unit becomes godly now and the only way to take it on is to spam numbers to beat down an elite unit, like how allies must do that to overcome King Tigers and a pair of panthers... so the discrepancy will grow and allies will have to 'nerf' their stuff just to field sufficient numbers to counter those overbuffed units, and before you mention AP rounds, that is doctrine specific.  If some of these abilities become non-doctrinal, then it wouldn't be an issue or if the doctrines are rewritten where US Infantry gets AP rounds and Armor companies get Tank reapers, etc to be able to cope with this when the basic non-doctrine buffed units become useless now and unable to compete even if they are in a tactically better situation than the buffed squad but it can single-handled repel 10x the number, thus becoming more cost effective, no?

Ok I interpretate your concerns as the this:
- Spam companies will remain powerful
- Single buffed units will become too powerful

I cant really decide if this is contradictory, lol. Seems like you think it will be.. balanced?  Remember the whole point introducing doctrine abilities as priced upgrades is to make players pay for increase in performance they get on each individual unit.

Deciding the general quality of the different aspects of your company will be part of the beauty of it. There wont be any significantly 100% correct answer to what is a perfect mix of weak and strong troops. Some players prefer to play with a lot of weak units while others prefer to play with strong/deadly but maybe frail combos, but whats been pointed out is that the guy spamming is getting a lot more performance increase for the same amount of resources,  a legitimate issue which this system resolves. All players like to have doctrine units, in different amounts. This system respects that. 

So, I disagree completely that spam is neccessarily going to beat high quality companies or the other way around. The players will decide the outcome, partly because this system equalizes what they get for their resources. Since R mode was introduced it has become normal to start with a callin that can defend itself reasonably well against both gimmicks and “power-starts”. The spam player might have more units in the end, but he’s also setting himself up for a critical pop bleed by losing initial engagements against upgraded units.  You obviously know that terror can be scary  in terms of high quality units, but this system doesn’t discriminate. All passive buffs that increase performance comes with a priced upgrade.

The upgrade prices probably needs to take in consideration the base platform, meaning that its not crazy to assume that wehrmacht upgrades might end up being a tad more expensive than american ones. Good point.

Sounds too much like OMG.

To be honest, it adds a negative feel to the doctrine unlocks when on top of buff you also get a nerf.
It's much more enjoyable when you only get buffs. That being said, it's important the buffs are kept marginal to prevent doctrine abilities from disturbing balance.

Where's the nerf? You pay for what you get.

[lionel23]

I'll have to agree with Unknown here, it kind of sucks the fun out of it by saying 'Well you got this ability.. you got to pay for it though', I had that happen when I got smoke grenades, and now I never get them because I have to pay a cost when the ability isn't worth it.  I would call on a serious re-evaluation of pricing for upgrades on this point if costs for doctrine stuff will be added.

Now are we balancing just off doctrine stuff now? I don't see where I am being contradictory Smokaz.  It seems you're balancing around buffed units when it should be the non-doctrine unit that is considered the norm, and we're not trying to make 'hero' units where one unit (Ie Terror I see you!) can counter superior numbers and tactics because it is so godly powerful that poor skill can be made up by sheer power and effectiveness.

I thought tank's thing was to limit spam right?  So right now I'll be spamming the units I can get the most ridiculous bonus out of because I have to pay for all my upgrades... so I may as well just buff my best units and get more of them now.  Then you have the flip side of the coin where doctrine units can no longer take on these super buffed doctrine units, so if you have a bunch of lmg grens one man squads, M1 carbines will die instantly to them so it in turn promotes the 'spam' mentality.  If my 6 BAR squads can't take on his one man, I'll need to remove my upgrades and get 12 basic riflemen to counter his elite with more crazy numbers.

It's pointless to now get non-doctrine upgrades you have to pay for when you have to get and pay for equally the doctrine buffs on your units.  Why should I bother with BARs when I have to buy M1s and nades just to deal with AI infantry, either way you're not changing the end result which is M1s still suck against tanks and either build is good against infantry, it seems you're limited variety like this by making everything pay, and then we have to balance abilities and in this case I would make BARS 30 MU, because you don't do any damage with suppression, while say M1s and Nades are 30 Each, better than bars and they actually kill things before your men are forced off, while BARs need a supporting squad to kill their target and can easily be killed en mass when alone.

And is the balanced start to counter all threats a problem now?  R+ I can start with a panther if I wanted to, or mass rangers or 2 m10s.  Say i do the two m10s, this revision tank proposes would not affect 'blob' starts... I will circle strafe the single AT gun you have buffed and sunk so much resources into, and I will proceed to run over all your men with my m10.  There, you just lost your new 200 MU AT gun and all your infantry to two non-buffed units.  You blow them up later, so what?  I last ran a 9 m10 company as well as a 8 cromwell company whose sole purpose was to die and take out as many doctrine and vetted units as possible, tanks or armor because you know what? They were cost effective.  If I really wanted overkill, then I'd do armor to slightly and passively buff them to make them more useful.  It's useless to put ammo into some of the allied vehicles because they die so easily compared to the tougher and sturdier axis counterparts.  An m10 goes kaboom real fast against the basic P4 sometimes, due to low life.  The same can't be said for a snub nosed Sherman against a stug, or hell I had my upgun churchill lose to a stug 1v1 and an unskirted P4 1v1, so now I'll have to pay for upgrades to retain mediocre performance?  If I'm paying anything, it's to make my churchill have a 17lbs to justify the cost, or make it marginal like 5 MU, but if we make it marginal it's like totally ignoring the system in the first place.

====

Edit: Though don't get me wrong Smokaz, the idea still itself is interesting, but just saying we don't want to ignore non-doctrine upgrades and units in favor of having to go doctrine heavy, with costs being equal and all.  Just the problems I forsee with the system.

[tankspirit668]

Sounds too much like OMG.

To be honest, it adds a negative feel to the doctrine unlocks when on top of buff you also get a nerf.
It's much more enjoyable when you only get buffs. That being said, it's important the buffs are kept marginal to prevent doctrine abilities from disturbing balance.

If you do just minor buffs the fellows will say it`s not good, we don`t need Doctrines at all, If you do them more good, you will have balancing issues, because there is no counterweight in the whole system, which is a very bad design principle and should be fixed. Counterweight should be the price. You get better unit, pay for it. You take it or leave it then.
OMG has no doctrines implemented and maybe never will, but maybe you know they are  implementing it in that way. If OMG Folks get it done that way  I say more tactical interested people will switch to OMG.

[tankspirit668]

Now are we balancing just off doctrine stuff now? I don't see where I am being contradictory Smokaz.  It seems you're balancing around buffed units when it should be the non-doctrine unit that is considered the norm, and we're not trying to make 'hero' units where one unit (Ie Terror I see you!) can counter superior numbers and tactics because it is so godly powerful that poor skill can be made up by sheer power and effectiveness.

I thought tank's thing was to limit spam right?  So right now I'll be spamming the units I can get the most ridiculous bonus out of because I have to pay for all my upgrades... so I may as well just buff my best units and get more of them now.  Then you have the flip side of the coin where doctrine units can no longer take on these super buffed doctrine units, so if you have a bunch of lmg grens one man squads, M1 carbines will die instantly to them so it in turn promotes the 'spam' mentality.  If my 6 BAR squads can't take on his one man, I'll need to remove my upgrades and get 12 basic riflemen to counter his elite with more crazy numbers.

It's pointless to now get non-doctrine upgrades you have to pay for when you have to get and pay for equally the doctrine buffs on your units.  Why should I bother with BARs when I have to buy M1s and nades just to deal with AI infantry, either way you're not changing the end result which is M1s still suck against tanks and either build is good against infantry, it seems you're limited variety like this by making everything pay, and then we have to balance abilities and in this case I would make BARS 30 MU, because you don't do any damage with suppression, while say M1s and Nades are 30 Each, better than bars and they actually kill things before your men are forced off, while BARs need a supporting squad to kill their target and can easily be killed en mass when alone.

Doctrines tend to create hero units in warcraft 3 style.

My proposal is not only to fight spam, it is to show the balance issues of the availibility system , it is broken atm. But combined with Doctrine Abilities it`s just getting really bad. Your getting very Unit specific again and stating Costs for DostrineAbilities here Lionel, but this threat is no about any Unit or Costs of things  at all. There is no counterweight to unit spam, there is no effective coutnerweight , no price to pay for Doctrine Abilities, either.

And this thread here is about that there is no counterweight to doctrine abilities and buffs, short  no price to pay. Every good System needs counterweights , if there is no counterweight and therefore no balance it`s getting abused.
I mean this mod will not live forever and it can be - EIR a history of spam and abuse or EIR a cool mod where tactical gameplay was encouraged and fun.

[Smokaz]

Too much conjecture going on here tbh.

[lionel23]

Doctrines tend to create hero units in warcraft 3 style.

My proposal is not only to fight spam, it is to show the balance issues of the availibility system , it is broken atm. But combined with Doctrine Abilities it`s just getting really bad. Your getting very Unit specific again and stating Costs for DostrineAbilities here Lionel, but this threat is no about any Unit or Costs of things  at all . There is no counterweight to unit spam, there is no effective coutnerweight , no price to pay for Doctrine Abilities, either.

And this thread here is about that there is no counterweight to doctrine abilities and buffs, short  no price to pay. Every good System needs counterweights , if there is no counterweight and therefore no balance it`s getting abused.
I mean this mod will not live forever and it can be - EIR a history of spam and abuse or EIR a cool mod where tactical gameplay was encouraged and fun.

Learn to read the thread, the subject of this thread is whether abilities should be cost or free, not because of lack of costs.  I'm stating my opinion on why it should stay free as opposed to costs, though the idea sounds interesting.  And there is currently a counterweight in the game, and that is through pool and PP costs, though you may see it as not sufficient, the current system has SOMETHING to deal with counterweighting unit spam.  What stops me from doing 50+ stormtroopers?  PP costs and pool cost prevents me from doing that and fielding a mix of support and spam of heavy tanks, that's what's in game currently.

[Mysthalin]

I do agree with smokie.

Just make the doctrine choises that are "teh suck" free, while making the ones that are "teh pwn" cost extra. Similarly how it was done to AP rounds and HE rounds - it's way more potent than NGV, but you have to pay for it, and it's on a timed use, instead of being latent buff.

Blob Zeal and Cohesion(and all other "blob for bonus" doctrines) could be kept to be the way they are, while making TR/M1 cost a slight bit extra for purchasing it on all your squads. Not implying a retarded ammount like 100 mu per M1 squad, but something like 5-10 is fairly reasonable(dont forget that there's far more riflemen per coy than there will ever be M10s).

[lionel23]

Hmm something like that then sounds fairly reasonable, as long as it's not like buying 'grenades' on top of all the other stuff you got to buy, especially as I said things like another 100 MU or something and then the price far, far outpaces other basic non-doctrine AT weapons or upgrades and the like.  I was thinking more from the TR/Cohesion point than the timed cooldown of Armor (which works well but hate to see all T4s turned into that, you know?)

[Smokaz]

I was thinking more along the lines of stuff like this:

Intensity upgrade upgrade for Stugs: (Grants 1.15 supression on tank mounted mgs) p4, king tiger etc: 30mp/10 munitions

Carabines: 20 munitions. (remember the 50% reload covers picked up weapons, zooks etc)

Heat round p4s: 80mp/40fuel
Barrels: 40mp/20fuel

I'd post the example draft of a doctrine in public, except I think I might not be allowed to

It might seem small or huge, but lets assume we have a blitz player kitting out four Panzer IV's with barrels and heat rounds (hardly unlikely), he'd end up paying 480MP/240 fuel more for his four super p4s.

Of course the numbers would have to be adjusted, I just think its a good idea.

[Leafedge]

Doesn't seem like anyone has thought of this, so I'll throw it out there: You're already paying for these doctrine abilities. You have to play a stupid amount of games just so that you can have them. If you have to pay again to use them anyway then you shouldn't have to buy the damn abilities in the first place. You should be trying to build your company in such a way as to maximize your Doctrine, not wondering if using your doctrine is really worth it or not. The doctrines should be built in such a way as to encourage all of them to be used, and at the same time, nobody should ever shrink from using his doctrine.

Paying to use your doctrine would also lead to this retarded situation:

Teammate 1: Hey help me with this tank, since you have Tank Reapers.
Teammate 2: OK.
(They get killed)
Teammate 1: Wow, that sucked, we should have won that.
Teammate 2: That's right, I forgot, that squad didn't have TR on it. Sorry. (Or better yet, he forgot to purchase TR on anything at all)

[Draken]

Short version:

All doctrine buffs that passively increase a units performance, should also increase its cost.

Heat Round P4s - more expensive
Fallschirms with kurtz - more expensive
Carabine rifles - more expensive

Examples of how its implemented (NUMBERS ARE RANDOM):

- Zeal becomes a 60 MP upgrade
- Carabines become a 25 munition upgrade
- Telescopic scopes becomes a 30 munitions upgrade

Reasoning its based on:
- The current implentation of AP rounds and HE rounds for armor
- Specialist/spam companies can overfield their doctrinal units and compensate for it because they DONT pay for the increased strength, they just get more out of A for the same amount of B

Really, the long read is a hell of a lot more informative than any short version I could produce to cater to you.

What about

Heat Round P4s - timed ability on cooldown
Fallschirms with kurtz - more expensive
Carabine rifles - change it to 7 rifleman squad with 10 mp higher cost, instead of earsing need of bars on rifles anymore, and making zooks and shrekz semi auto on them.

[lionel23]

Doesn't seem like anyone has thought of this, so I'll throw it out there: You're already paying for these doctrine abilities. You have to play a stupid amount of games just so that you can have them. If you have to pay again to use them anyway then you shouldn't have to buy the damn abilities in the first place. You should be trying to build your company in such a way as to maximize your Doctrine, not wondering if using your doctrine is really worth it or not. The doctrines should be built in such a way as to encourage all of them to be used, and at the same time, nobody should ever shrink from using his doctrine.

Paying to use your doctrine would also lead to this retarded situation:

Teammate 1: Hey help me with this tank, since you have Tank Reapers.
Teammate 2: OK.
(They get killed)
Teammate 1: Wow, that sucked, we should have won that.
Teammate 2: That's right, I forgot, that squad didn't have TR on it. Sorry. (Or better yet, he forgot to purchase TR on anything at all)

Heh good example too, and I do agree with you and I have been pointing that out in regards to increasing the cost of exisiting units or making those same units now have triple costs associated with them.

Not saying I'm 100% against the idea though, I'd have to hear more details to convince me it wouldn't go down the path that tankspirit was taking the other thread in.  And I do like Draken's ideas too, that's another way the abilities could be done within the system.

[CrazyWR]

Short version:

All doctrine buffs that passively increase a units performance, should also increase its cost.

Heat Round P4s - more expensive
Fallschirms with kurtz - more expensive
Carabine rifles - more expensive

Examples of how its implemented (NUMBERS ARE RANDOM):

- Zeal becomes a 60 MP upgrade
- Carabines become a 25 munition upgrade
- Telescopic scopes becomes a 30 munitions upgrade

Reasoning its based on:
- The current implentation of AP rounds and HE rounds for armor
- Specialist/spam companies can overfield their doctrinal units and compensate for it because they DONT pay for the increased strength, they just get more out of A for the same amount of B

Really, the long read is a hell of a lot more informative than any short version I could produce to cater to you.

What about

Heat Round P4s - timed ability on cooldown
Fallschirms with kurtz - more expensive
Carabine rifles - change it to 7 rifleman squad with 10 mp higher cost, instead of earsing need of bars on rifles anymore, and making zooks and shrekz semi auto on them.

that last one seems pretty massively OP...

[pqumsieh]

I like this idea. It'll be a pain in the ass for players, but it will definitely help with balancing doctrines/company builds.

Perhaps impliment a new feature in the launcher to go with this addition. Allow players to save their company so if they lose a bunch of things they can get everything back to where htey'd like it to be wihtout having to know what they had before hand.

PQ

[tankspirit668]

Doesn't seem like anyone has thought of this, so I'll throw it out there: You're already paying for these doctrine abilities. You have to play a stupid amount of games just so that you can have them. If you have to pay again to use them anyway then you shouldn't have to buy the damn abilities in the first place.
Paying to use your doctrine would also lead to this retarded situation:
....

Where do you PAY for these abilities? Where is the counterweight that`s neccessary for balance, the price ? It´s more I`m spamming some games to get it for free at the moment.

It should be possible for the devs ( really just an assumtion - myabe I´m totally wrong ) to assign the buff  update for affected units by default. But even with these it`s worsening the usability situation a little, but maybe that`s what auntie meant with there is the  right way and the easy way.

[Smokaz]

I dont see why spamming games is something that supposedly needs amazing reward. It hasnt been in the past, right? And you'd still rack up PPs, wins and profile rank by playing.

Its also funny how a player being inept and forgetful is brought up as a point against the system, or how its too complex. That card can be played against anything. "But what if stupid people trip the fire alarm? Shouldnt it have unbreakable glass?"

[NAQOYQATSI]

Smokaz points to a very interesting discrepancy in the doctrine system here, namely between latent buffs and abilities that have to be bought. This touches the core of doctrine balance.

I think it's a problem which is partly caused by a poor and uneven doctrine structure. So I will just post my idea, which could be part of a solution or inspire others.

My proposal is to redo the structure of the tiers.

For example:

Tier 1A : weak abilities you have to buy
Tier 1B: strong abilities you have to buy

Tier 2A: weak latent buffs
Tier 2B: strong latent buffs

This way you can accomodate both positions in this debate and it would help in bringing clarity.
Ofcourse, this doesn't adress the fact that the factions aren't mirrored, so the problem could still be there.
This should be adressed by future debate.

For example, the factions don't necessarily need to have the same number of options. Some factions might need a larger or smaller tier choice than others, for balance sake.

I'm sure there will be criticism to this proposal, but I'm just throwing it out there.

[sgMisten]

Damn good thinking Smokaz. This greatly explains why some doctrines choices are better, or no-brainers compared to others.

There's also another option. Instead of adding costs to existing passive buffs, remove the costs from the strong abilities that currently cost something.

E.g.
AP rounds / HE rounds now come as a free ability on a relevant tank once you unlock the T4, which allows such abilities to compete with free passives with a minimal of coding headache.

[tankspirit668]

Damn good thinking Smokaz. This greatly explains why some doctrines choices are better, or no-brainers compared to others.

There's also another option. Instead of adding costs to existing passive buffs, remove the costs from the strong abilities that currently cost something.

E.g.
AP rounds / HE rounds now come as a free ability on a relevant tank once you unlock the T4, which allows such abilities to compete with free passives with a minimal of coding headache.

Misten, this is not what this thread is about, it`s not about make every doctrine  the same cost, it is about bringing the advantages you get more into balance as a whole with the gains you get. You get a better tank, because of a doctrine buff - hey cool for you and now pay for it please a little fee. Your reward is you can field more powerful units.