The new grindless system - Factional progression (FP)

[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

[AmPM]

Well, that would be why you would implement an automatch function similar to vCoH.

No game dodging at that point.

[brn4meplz]

Some people will still dodge regardless when they get into RO

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Tank is essentially a communist.

 Don't get me wrong I'm a big supporter of him using his generosity to spur EiRmod to great action, but the same principles that allowed him to accrue his wealth should be the same principles that govern this game: the people who put time in, get reward out. Not "everyone is a lovely little flower who is equally special, and deserves an equal share of the pie even if they only play 1 game a week".

 No more time for coddling and sitting around in drum circles singing Kum Bay Yah.

 Tank, your hippie ways are killing the republic. You're capitalist ones are saving it. End the disparity!

 -Wind

[Groundfire]

I happily await the communist regime and Tbh, tank should get whatever he wants for single handedly spurring development.

Dont know why you are droning on wind. Literally after 40 games, there is no more company progression. I have the feeling that your only reason for defending this capitalist position is your ability to hit lvl9 in a day and watch the rest struggle to reach that same pinnacle.

Is it fun? Maybe

Is it condusive to promoting the mod? Hell no

As a mentor, i would expect you to understand this. Try and explain to a new EIRR player that every game he will play for his first 20 games will have him severely outmatched by superior companies, vet and players; and even then, dont expect him to fully grasp the learning curve.

How do we increase our playerbase? Level the playing field in terms of doctirnal progression and move the grind elsewhere. (vet, warmap, RB system, custom units, etc.)

You dont even know what the grind is shifting to yet, how can you argue against it?

Stop with the capitalist mannifestio, its getting ridiculious. Your energies are best spent helping us promote the mod instead of speaking against it.

[AmPM]

Indeed. Promote equality.

Remove the vet system, it makes things unequal. Also, remove doctrines, it also makes things unequal.

In fact, make the games play themselves, since skill can also be unequal. On top of this all companies should be mirrored as well as unit stats.

Really?

OR, you can make a game that requires some skill to play and succeed at. That model does work too you know.

Making Vet the reward system for good play means that you need a way to prevent game spamming from being an effective way of gaining it (aka, running unit on, killing something, hitting retreat, vet 3 after a few games).

The problem is, how do you get people to actually play a game when they have a chance to lose without gaining something unless they win?

Also, why should we reward failure?

If you want to make the game accessible to everyone at the same level, then you also remove any sense of challenge or real accomplishment because everything has to be available to the worst player.

[Groundfire]

If you want to make the game accessible to everyone at the same level, then you also remove any sense of challenge or real accomplishment because everything has to be available to the worst player.

In the current system as much with any system that must accompany a player base of our size, the crappiest player will get his special units and abilities at some point anyways.

So there is no real personal advancement in the first place, it just takes time that people dont have.

Grind and personal achievement can be reached through other avenues.

Ill tell ya what tho. Nothing's going to change in your favor if all you people do is sit here and bitch. 

[AmPM]

It's not bitching, it just requires alternate rewards received for skill and winning rather than for play time spent.

I'm not advocating a system to reward number of games played, in fact its the opposite. I think reward should be based on playing well.

Should new players be encouraged to play? Yes, but that would be through a separate reward system and based upon the total number of games on their accounts. Not just the one account, but all accounts. To prevent players from making newb advantage using grief companies.

[Groundfire]

It's not bitching, it just requires alternate rewards received for skill and winning rather than for play time spent.

I'm not advocating a system to reward number of games played, in fact its the opposite. I think reward should be based on playing well.

Should new players be encouraged to play? Yes, but that would be through a separate reward system and based upon the total number of games on their accounts. Not just the one account, but all accounts. To prevent players from making newb advantage using grief companies.

Well then what are we arguing about? Cause afaik, exactly what you described is in the works as we speak. Or if not in the immediate doctrine/warmap patch, then within the immediate reworks after that.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Tank is essentially a communist.
 No more time for coddling and sitting around in drum circles singing Kum Bay Yah.
 Tank, your hippie ways are killing the republic. -Wind

Wind fuck off. Really.
Your constant whining about the stupidest shit needs to stop now before you get to the top of even more people's shit list.
If you want to argue something, fine, then argue a point. But your *wah tank is a commie wah* shit is some of the most immature posting I have ever seen, as is your blatant disrespect for other players, straw man arguments and ad hominems. You're only hurting your argument (a perspective that I even share with you) more than you are helping it.

but the same principles that allowed him to accrue his wealth should be the same principles that govern this game: the people who put time in, get reward out. Not "everyone is a lovely little flower who is equally special, and deserves an equal share of the pie even if they only play 1 game a week".

(From what I have gathered, please correct me if I'm wrong on any point) Tank has worked hard for well over a decade to get to this point in his life. He started with very little, and is now the owner of a multi-million dollar company.
But he's busy running and managing that company, and doesn't have time to waste his life playing 15+ games a day like you. Likewise, most people have shit to do. To compare his hard work and dedication with your poopsocking is a joke on so many levels it's not even funny. Same with your idea that the work required to build and manage a real-life company is the same that goes into your internet video game manz.
Just stop.

[Nevyen]

I don't know how this whole discussion ended up being about economic philosophy, oh wait I do.............. Wind.

That aside, there needs to be grind, but at the same time you should not reward spammers in any form. In game and those who actually spam games.

Progression and game development needs to be set to a curve that allows new players to flex without being marauded by those hawks who sit in games and and feign to play to get games but only revel in the easy wins from cheap games with lower level players.

How does this get solved, simple. You need more than multi-player content you need a fair balance of single and multiplayer. 

Well developed Single Player content can allow newer players to enjoy the mod and also branch out into mulitplayer content down the track.  It protects them from the vultures and inhibits the spam gamer from capitalizing on their relative noobness.

This is how MMO's do it.  You have single and group content.  Yes you getter better rewards from the group content in terms of items and so on but the single content still allows you a fall back.

Players in this mod are restricted to one form and that can be a substantive turn off, if they are bludgeoned to death all the time.

Sure there is the "harden" up point of view but to dip into the economic mantras being kicked around, good capitalist systems are more effective when Keynesian economics is in place, you need to allow the upper elements of a the economic cycle prosper but at the same timr have balance in providing social stability and support to the lower levels of the economic tree and seek to provide opportunities and social support to allow them to raise up to higher level.

If you let the concepts of private sector rule the macroeconomic environment with out effective and at time interventionist monetary policy the outcomes are inefficient and cannot overall support the economy as a whole.

Hence the GFC. 

Here in EIR if we have to go down this road we are allowing a system to exist that is driven purely by the private sector/ self interest of the long term vet who has a high level company.

There is no effective social/ policy support for the newer player and they are left to wolves and as such its survival of the fittest.

That may be fine for the jungle but when you want to expand your player base, improve participation as well as donation rates you need to have effective policy that, reduces and or keeps inflation at acceptable rates while allowing growth in the lower economic sectors where the real growth and prosperity is driven from anyway.

And thus that is why this current form of the game in terms of grind is unsustainable and why certain countries economies are complete basket cases and other have mitigated the drama of the GFC and are now getting on with the rest of their lives.

[Illegal_Carrot]

It's not the system that has to be radically changed, it's the community. Any newbie with half a brain knows that they're going to lose their first few games and they're fine with that.
It's the community that needs to stop exploiting this by stomping them, and instead help them with battalion composition, in-game tactics and with more one-on-one time to help.
This means that the Helper and Mentor systems need to make a comeback, and actually have some sort of mod-sanctioned support or incentive.
More easily accessed tutorials on the site, forums, launcher, ModDB and even Vent would be very helpful for educating/retaining newer players, as would up-to-date threads containing important information (such as who the mod/dev/balance team is, current doctrines, bannable exploits, etc.) and an updated news/front/home page.
More community involvement in general needs to happen, but this relies on the mod team to encourage participation, and actually put forth an effort on this front. Once it gets started, though, the ball won't stop rolling.
All this (and the very survival of the mod even!) means we have to not only recruit new players, but retain them.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Too much SM wankery in here.

Jump-Shoot-Jump OOPS YOU'RE DEAD.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Roar of opinions pro and con

 Lets synthesize my opinion down to these key facts:

 1. Input should be proportionate to output

 What this means:

 There are many ways to contribute to this mod - all of them should be rewarded proportionately to the amount in which they are met. Some ways are more valuable than others. Some are as simple as playing games (and thus making the mod more active etc.). Some are far more valuable such as actual monetary contribution (exhibit A: Tank, and to a smaller extent the rest of us donaters). On the opposite end of this spectrum, are the non-active, non-donating players.

 Should this latter group be punished or penalized? No. Should they be, by default, entitled to the same level of return as those who contribute greatly? No! Is this the same as penalizing them? As long as they have the same opportunities to contribute as other players (aka. freedom to play a game should they desire it, a working donation link) then no it is not.

2. A sense of achievement and/or the possibility of strategic advantage is a strong form of motivation

 It is definitely admirable to devise a system wherein new comers to the mod retain some semblance of a fighting chance, and it is not a situation where you either have to play from day 1 after a reset or be doomed to 50 games at a disadvantage. With that being said, however, you cannot also solely balance a system based off of the underpeforming extreme. Removing the pursuit of excellence, of individual opportunity, removes a huge chunk of your playerbase. In a mod like this, activity is currency. The more active this mod is, the better it A) markets itself, B) appeals to new players, and C) promises growth.

 Incentives should continue to be offered to the players who help keep the mod active. No one is saying the casual players who don't have as much time/desire to play should be punished, but it is unreasonable to declare that a system that rewards those who spend more time, energy, and effort contributing to the mod in the above mentioned ways (donations, mentor/helper/vent registrations, playing games etc.) is somehow unfair.

3. People (ideally) can't have their cake, and eat it too

 No one is saying that everyone should have to play tons of games to get anywhere in this mod. No one is saying that someone who only gets one or two games in a week shouldn't have opportunities.

 What I am saying, however, is that it is wrong for someone to say "I don't want to play more than a few games a week, but it's not fair if people who play more get advantages over me!". That, logically, doesn't make sense.

 Let us say, for example, that I didn't play EiR games more than one or twice a week because I work. This is a very reasonable and acceptable reason not to play EiR. Many of our players fit in this category. There are long periods of time when even I am so busy that I can't get in more than a few a week.

 This is us choosing other things in our lives that have higher priority. It means that we have less time to play EiR because we are pursuing greater returns in other aspects of our lives.

 Could we instead play tons of games of EiR (and only work 1 or 2 hours a week) and then complain to our bosses that other people who are working 40 hours a week are getting more money? Of course not!

 If I work, or do many other things such as school instead of playing EiR, I am getting rewards for those pursuits. I don't see why I also get to demand no advantages be given to people who choose (albeit unwisely) to devote their time to a game instead IN THAT GAME. Just doesn't make sense. If I was so concerned about advantages, I'll make time to play more (and thus sacrifice advancement in the areas of my life outside the game). Expecting both is silly.


 The ideal system is one where the disparity between those who contribute (by any of the above mentioned means) and those who do not is not insurmountable or absurd, but where there still remains enough incentive to encourage players to strive for excellence. With this current system, although to be fair it is but a skeleton of what the greater picture would be, there is too little of this incentive.

RAGE RAGE RAGE, + personal insult + hypocritical logic + more rage + personal epeen vendetta because I got pantsed in earlier arguments and have been looking ever since for a chance to get even + decent point that gets betrayed by the absurdity of the rest of the post + very cool sounding ultimatum to make me seem important

You can't make an argument that something is being taken too seriously (aka. digital mans) in the middle of one of the most ludicrisly hilarious personal vendetta posts this universe has ever seen. I don't know if all this useless, directionless, epeen rage is because something I said in the past made you cry, or because the man has you down in real life and you need to vent, but good gravy son - get a therapist to vent these feelings. You're like that guy at every work place whose got a chip on his shoulder because he feels he never quite fit in, so he inexplicably tries to counterbalance his inferiority complex by attempting to exert his illusion of authority at every inopportune, baffling moment. Stop it now? Or you'll cry? Easy there Winona!

 Either join in the fun of satirical arguments, or argue intellectually without hysterical passion, or move on to the next town and hope to find water there. The 4th option of flame war is not suited to your high stakes emotional state. Seriously, every time I read one of your posts I worry that physical tears of anger are going to hit your computer screen, digitize into binary format, and travel the interweb (sputtering and spitting all the way) before they come shooting out of my speakers to hit me in the face while my speakers blare out wallowing frothing madness to make even Moaning Myrtle do a double take. The funny part is I don't even like you and I'm worried about you, so that's saying something.

 Ok that's not actually true. It's people like you that make posting on internet forums hilarious, and thus I do like you.

General awesomeness + hilarious picture

 Ground, you are aces dude. I laughed out loud.


 -Wind

[Unkn0wn]

Some of you clearly don't know the meaning of 'communism'. I take you've all been watching Glenn Beck over at Fox news too much.

I'd like to quote myself on why there'd still be a point in playing.

Well first off, there's the game itself. vCOH doesn't reward you for playing extensively, yet a lot of people do.
Of course, since this is sort of an MMO game in which people strive for further company progression there's also the added 'grind' elements for the individual players. These could include:
- Reward units
- Veterancy (3 or 5 levels)
- Warmap rank and control
- 'Warmap cards' (Extra off-maps, units, pool values, whatever)
- Possibly resource bonuses. (See old RB system)

Looking over that list, surely you can't claim that there's not going to be enough individual grind there?
Yes, the benefits you get from these will be smaller ingame than the average benefit you'd get from a large pp/xp advantage but there's still more than enough to make it worthwhile.

On the subject of veterancy, I think it's very reasonable to re-implement something like the 10% xp loss on all units when losing a game for example. (And/or a 5xp bonus per won battle)

What a lot of people are missing here is that, just like you would in the military, with the implementation of the EIR warmap you will be able to make a "carreer" and rise in ranks. With every higher rank comes new perks on the warmap.

We are shifting the grind to other areas, not getting rid of it. Claiming that somehow you'd have no incentive to play a lot of games in the proposed environment is absurd.

Hell, if it's really 'bad', we could even implement a small "side-grind" in which players who play a lot can rise slightly above their faction level.

P.S communism could work, don't tempt us to try it  .

[Illegal_Carrot]

See? Now that you've stopped shouting OMG COMMIES LOL, and have actually made a well thought-out, legitimate argument, people are much more likely to take you more seriously! Shame, if only you did this sort of thing more often..

And like I said, I actually agree with a huge majority of what you have to say. However, I'd like to say a few things myself:

There are many ways to contribute to this mod ... (exhibit A: Tank) ...  all of them should be rewarded

This I agree with -- now that you've changed your opinion on the matter. Remember when you called Tank a communist, and said that he didn't deserve any reward points because he wasn't dedicated enough to the mod? I do...
Nice to see you've finally changed your opinion on this, though.

It is definitely admirable to devise a system wherein new comers to the mod retain some semblance of a fighting chance, and it is not a situation where you either have to play from day 1 after a reset or be doomed to 50 games at a disadvantage.

Exactly. There are many newbie-friendly systems out there (that would even be easier to create and implement!) that are must less radically different than the current. Several of us have put forth some great ideas, and it's unfortunate that they've all gotten ignored.

Incentives should continue to be offered to the players who help keep the mod active.

Agreed, but this needs to cover more than just active players. Get new mappers involved - skin pack creators, sound designers and front page writers, too. More community involvement is 100% what this mod needs right now, more than anything else.

What I am saying, however, is that it is wrong for someone to say "I don't want to play more than a few games a week, but it's not fair if people who play more get advantages over me!". That, logically, doesn't make sense

That, of course, is based on the logic that playing games is just as important as working or spending time with one's kids. Which is downright absurd.
Company's comparative levels is a zero-sum thing: as one player get stronger and stronger, he is more able to stomp another player, even if that second, lower level player isn't actually losing levels/experience/power from their inactivity, lack of skill or losses. That, in-turn, discourages players from playing even further; they'll never be as 'good' as other players, and in every game they play, they'll be at a huge disadvantage.

Again, a simple XP/PP bonus to new accounts for each game played (after the first few weeks of a campaign) would do it, no need for a radical redesign of the system, especially not when there's more important stuff to be done right now *cough*warmap*cough*

Hmm.. Except that I never insulted you, I never used hypocritical logic, you've never 'pantsed' me before and I couldn't give a shit about whatever that vendetta thing you're talking about is.
You're the one that tried to call me out on Vent, remember? I really don't care, and I'm not interested in having a rap battle with you or whatever.

[Unkn0wn]

This isn't just about protecting certain types of players mind you, this will also improve fairness in competition and reduce the grind.

Even players that manage to get past the huge hurdle that is learning the mod, even if he turns out to be a really good player, he's still at a significant disadvantage when fighting other players with 'older' -grinded- accounts. Heck, we've had vCOH pros leave the mod because of this.

If we truly want a proper, fair, competitive environment than we need to reduce the gigantic advantage discrepancy between players and equalise the playing field more.

Think of it in vCOH terms. Imagine you'd roll into an automatch game versus a high level opponent, at least you know both of you start with the same tools, at exactly the same level and whatever outcome ensues will have solely skill to thank for.

Now How fun would that vCOH automatch game be if that high level opponent started with his doctrines unlocked? Oh, I'm sure many people would say 'fuck it' and quit.

Yet that's almost exactly what we're doing in EIR, and we're expecting new players to cope with it.
(If 1vs1s would be more common, this huge discrepancy would be much more noticeable by the way)

That's not to say you don't need skill to win in EIR, but skill will account for a significantly smaller percentage in your victory than it does in your average competitive RTS.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Remove the penalty for playing 1v1s, as the Intelligence tab means that any cheating is easily noticed and reported. That in itself would do a lot for the mod.

I think it'd also be great to have a Training Mode: no XP/PP gain, and no chance of losing units. It'd be great for teaching new players, trying new company build, etc.

[Unkn0wn]

With the proposed system 1vs1s will likely increase in importance anyway :p.

[Mysthalin]

I've proposed an idea for the veterancy gains rework to EiRRMod ages ago, and he was pretty happy with it. What it basically came down to :

SPs are removed from the veterancy system. People automatically gain vet 2/vet 3 just by achieving the required experience (ala vet 1) - which also allows in-game vet-ups.

However, the launcher begins tallying up the ammount of veterancy each player has. Vet 1 has no effect, but each vet 2 reduces the veterancy gain by 2 percent, and each vet 3 - by a further 2(total 4).

Now, assume a person has got 10 vet 2s and 5 vet 3s. He would then have the following equation applied :

1 * 0.98^10 * 0.96^5 =  0.817 * 0.815 = 0.666 veterancy gain rate.
If his P4 killed 20 people, and they were worth 20 experience, due to this vet inhibitor he would only gain 13 experience on his P4.

Naturally, this system could be fine tuned to make riflemen veterancy have a lesser impact on being vetted, whereas a pershing could have a higher impact and so forth. The main pro of this kind of system is that it allows everyone the chance of vetting up, while still creating an increasingly incremental grind the more veterancy you have. However, if you happen to lose all your vet - your fresh troops are a lot easier to vet up yet again. So, the newbies are happy, and so are the die-hard game fanatics that want som sort of grind.

[TheWindCriesMary]

endless quote/point argument style

 There is a reason this kind of post inevetiably degrades into endless back and forths of quote, line, quote, line. I'd rather stick to normal paragraphs. I remember what I said well enough to know what you're talking about.

 On top of that, no more nonsense about "now that you are doing this". It's been the exact same argument made for months.

  The only difference is, people other than yourself have wisened up to the idea that inevitably any argument about something as ultimately insignificant as the reward system of an online COH mod on a forum (where their opinions ultimately will have little sway) is in itself a bit of a joke and have mixed their points with a bit of humour. Lighten up, stop wanting to take yourself so seriously all the time, and stop thinking every time someone teases you a bit you need to get so damn angry. You are so many quick parts of RAGE, reason, condescension, and so quick to take offense that the instability is ludicrously amusing.


 And no, I have changed absolutely no opinion on the matter about Tank and reward points. You just were too busy frothing at the mouth originally that you didn't bother reading anything until now. And now that you have finally cooled down enough since then to do so, you find you actually agree with what I've been saying all along. Read my original posts from way back in that campaign thread, I was making the EXACT same arguments about how all contributions to the mod have merit, but had to be rewarded in appropriate ways relevant to that contribution, and that that system has to be made apparent. Instead of actually intellectually approaching the delicate point trying to be made about how it was hypocritical and stupid for people who don't play a lot to expect reward points when people who did play a lot and contributed far more to the campaign weren't getting them, you made up some hilarious scarecrow argument that myself (and other people) were accusing Tank of doing nothing for the mod and that he deserved nothing ever.

 You were living in a fantasy world where you not only got to write your own arguments, but you also got to write the arguments of your opponents. Hell it's not hard to be right all the time in that kind of circumstance.


 And then there is this nonsense about "players get discouraged because they will never catch up to the good players."

 This is what I call hyperbole and theorycrafting gone terribly wrong, because it is an example of how a person can convince themselves they are being logical by building an argument of 15 steps where 4 of them are actually illogical.

  The comparitive levels of companies are NOT a zero-sum thing. Not even close. Do you even know what Zero sum means?

 For EiR company's comparative levels to be Zero sum, it would have to be as such:

                                            Player 1 Wins           Player 1 Wins
      Player 1's  PP/EXP                +5/+7                       +10/+12
      Player 2's  PP/EXP                 -5/-7                       -10/-12

 Zero sum means that the gain of one player is exactly offset and counter-balanced by the loss of another. The simple fact that, REGARDLESS of win or lose, both players accrue exp and PP makes that completely impossible.

 This is a wholesale, and blatant misuse of the term Zero sum.

 Furthermore, the mere fact that Player 2 would also gain gameplay experience and learn valuable lessons FURTHER removes this kind of game from the concept of zero-sum (which it is already appallingly distant from)

  Not to mention that your argument blatantly contradicts the story of EVERY single active EiR player currently in the community. Ask any of them and you will almost always get the same story: they got totally destroyed their first 20 or so EiR games, and gradually gained experience until they had the abillity to compete.

 That is just in terms of their EiR ability removed from company level or doctrine abilities.

 
 Reaching rank 9 is a factor of games played, nothing else. Regardless of ability, amount of time available per week etc., EVERY EiR player has equal opportunity to reach rank 9. The only variable is how long it takes to get there. But that is a perfectly reasonable variable to have.


 Your argument, even aside from the misunderstood and woeful misuse of the zero-sum concept, contradicts basic logic, the story of nearly every currently active EiR player, and the basic mechanics of the system itself.


 As for ventrillo, I politely invited you (without insult or anger) to discuss our previous disagreement on ventrillo as an alternative to filling the forums with useless rage epeen posts. You would be amazed how quickly people drop their bravado when they have to discuss something with someone face to face, instead of playing to a third party audience. When that moment came, however, you conveniently had to go to dinner. I mentioned that I would be happily waiting for you on your return. Needless to say you did not come back, and never sought to recontact me.

 After all, it's far easier to take guerrilla pot shots in unrelated threads  

 Bang!

-Wind