Level 1 again

[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

[tank130]

OK, I get it.
It's not that you loose xp for loosing, you just don't get as much as you would have if you won.

I like that.

[AmPM]

Yea, up to a certain amount, so lets say you lose 5% of your total XP for a loss, but gain 3 XP for a game.

Infantry would level out at 60xp, putting them usually, just above vet 2.

Now lets say you have that Vet 3 unit with 100xp, you lose said game, you lose 5xp, but gain 3 for the game, its now a 98xp unit that is no longer vet 3.

The best part, is this is all backend stuff, so you could make it easier to keep basic units vetted, but have a higher penalty for "elite" units, like Rangers, FJ, Tanks, etc. Stuff that kills faster, that way you dont just run on, kill a couple things, and then not worry about it.

[tank130]

Yea, up to a certain amount, so lets say you lose 5% of your total XP for a loss, but gain 3 XP for a game.

Infantry would level out at 60xp, putting them usually, just above vet 2.

Now lets say you have that Vet 3 unit with 100xp, you lose said game, you lose 5xp, its now a 95xp unit that is no longer vet 3.

If the unit was 100xp before the game, I don't think it should be 95 xp after a lose. That is penalizing the player for loosing. This would promote dodging and would not be fair to the stronger players. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying.

Here's what I think would be fair to everyone and help eliminate dodging.

Let's say every game you play, all of your remaining units, that were deployed, are eligible for a gain of 4xp
If you win, that xp is multiplied by 1.25 = 5xp
If you loose, that xp is multiplied by .5 = 2xp

This way you are rewarded for playing a game. You are rewarded even more for wining that game. You are penalized somewhat for loosing, but you do not loose anything you had before the game.

The numbers I have used are just arbitrary for now, someone with better knowledge of the system would have to pick the appropriate values.

[Tymathee]

Yeah back in the old EIR days, losing xp for losing a game was horribly stupid and annoying, especially if you were just learning the game.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Yeah back in the old EIR days, losing xp for losing a game was horribly stupid and annoying, especially if you were just learning the game.

I don't know if anyone played final fantasy 11, but xp loss was horrible then, its horrible now and it will never get any better

[salan]

one of the reasons Che originally removed the xp loss when we were creating EIRR was the tendency for newer players to be bypassed even more.  IE: game starts, 3 level 9s join, and on opposing team, 1 level 9 joins followed by a level 2..

what would happen?  Either:

level 2 leaves.

level 9 leaves, no one else joins.

once you start to LOSE for simply playing a game you probably won't normally win.  You'd see EPIC dodging.

[rifle87654]

So the important point is:
Make two servers.
One for 1-3
One for 4-6
One for 7-9
One for everyone
That what I found in Taiwanese online games.
Like Counter Strike Online...
Makes things balanced.

[TheLastArmada]

So the important point is:
Make two servers.
One for 1-3
One for 4-6
One for 7-9
One for everyone
That what I found in Taiwanese online games.
Like Counter Strike Online...
Makes things balanced.

EIR runs through CoH so we cant make an extra server for more experienced players thats just silly..

Its the responsibility of our community to teach new players so that one day they might too be apart of the elite

[AmPM]

Salan, that is why among other things, I mentioned the need for a rework of the reward system for playing with poor and new players.

[Mister Schmidt]

Yes, Counter Strike is most definately a Taiwanese game. 

You can't make servers for CoH you fool, that's just one of the most fail things I have ever heard. Do you not realise how much of a problem smurfing would become?

[tank130]

Yes, Counter Strike is most definately a Taiwanese game. 

You can't make servers for CoH you fool, that's just one of the most fail things I have ever heard. Do you not realise how much of a problem smurfing would become?

The only thing more annoying than rifles posts, are dumb asses derailing a thread. Now move along please.

[Mister Schmidt]

Only thing more annyoing than that is an idiot with a big mouth who thinks he can tell people what to do.

I hardly derailed the thread, I replied to his post which didn't make sense.

You've actually done more deraling than I, via simply that one post.

And NOW the thread is derailed. Congratulations.

[RoyalHants]

Only thing more annyoing than that is an idiot with a big mouth who thinks he can tell people what to do.

I hardly derailed the thread, I replied to his post which didn't make sense.

You've actually done more deraling than I, via simply that one post.

And NOW the thread is derailed. Congratulations.

lolits not derailled its just a bit lost

[Illegal_Carrot]

Only thing more annyoing than that is an idiot with a big mouth who thinks he can tell people what to do.

I hardly derailed the thread, I replied to his post which didn't make sense.

You've actually done more deraling than I, via simply that one post.

And NOW the thread is derailed. Congratulations.

History has proven that tank130 is always 100% correct. Therefore, you;re wrong.

[RoyalHants]

now now ladies put away the handbags and atleast try to rerail the thread

so yeah no piont in changing it with the new doctrines around the corner

[EIRRMod]

Salan, that is why among other things, I mentioned the need for a rework of the reward system for playing with poor and new players.

Moving the topic back into theme....

The reward system really did need more abilities, but we opened the table on HOW a long time ago - its on the back burner (like a lot of things).
The idea of giving rewards to lower levels as incentive works in theory, until you find that its STILL not much fun for a level 1 to play versus a level 9.

Removing the ranking system (ala a grindless system) and focusing on vet, only moves the problem from doctrine abilities to veterancy abilities - it will STILL be unfun to play vs a vetted up army with a non-vetted one.

Therefore, the focus HAS to be on skill discrepancies - which can only be found from win/loss ratios (that I can think of off the bat)

[tank130]

Playing versus a vetted company will in fact be difficult for a new player. However, that vetted company has to continue to play well to maintain that vet. The new player can gain vet quickly by playing well, so the gap is closed quicker.

As it is now, you gain doctrine advantages basically for the number of games played. Once you have those abilities, you can't loose them; even to a better skilled player. The new player, regardless of skills, does not have a fair playing field until he grinds his way there.

I think it is fair to say all new players expect to loose their opening battles to established players. However, a new player, who has good skills, will quickly be a force to reckon with. Casual players, who have good skills, will also be on a level playing field.

I disagree we are moving the problem from one place to another. Doctrines should be there for everybody to specialize their army. Vet is the reward you get for playing well. Everybody, regardless of the number of games played, could have a vetted army if they play well. The key would be keeping that vet by playing well.