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

[Illegal_Carrot]

I was gonna post a long winded counter argument but these forums have done this so many times in the past. pretty much at least once for every change and iteration of the mod.

Then perhaps you should stop changing and creating new iterations of the mod? Why not at least get one thing done before you take on several more tasks? Why not create a really fun and balanced game based on what we have now, rather than reinventing everything all over again?

It's so damn frustrating to see perfectly good ideas (the current doctrines) thrown away when they could have been perfect with just a little tweaking, and it's terrible to see the entire basis of the mod (individual company progression and advancement) be thrown out when it can just be modified slightly to be more newbie-friendly.

[brn4meplz]

the change from numerical data entry to create a company, into a visual web based design was progress.

The change from the web based visual design into the launcher was progress.

The change from super IMBA doctrines(Tank reapers +75% dmg accuracy and penetration!) to more balanced doctrines was progress.


But somehow the change from wildly differing doctrine strengths, doctrines that make no sense, and doctrines that might not work isn't progress?

Seriously?

The whole point as to why 'several tasks' are being done simultaneously is because. EiRRMods strengths are in a field that no one else can accomplish anything. Sure the whole dev team count stand there and hold his penis for him while he does it but how is that in any way efficient? One persons task and skill set are being applied in an area where no one else here is his equal(or even close)

Bob and Firesparks are doing RGD coding/bug fixing.

I'm drafting a pool system change based on upgrades purchased.

All of these things are being handled by the people who are good at them. It's known universally as "CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES" The current doctrines are... not bad. but not good, half the axis selections don't work, or are some kind of negative positive trade off.

You'll notice that many of the current doctrines chocies are still in place in the new rework with changed numerical values. Anything that isn't carried over is replacing something that either wasn;t worth taking or didn't work.

and because the concept is so god damned important in every aspect of every ones life I'm going to restate it.

CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES - Utilizing the expertise and focus of differing people to accomplish multiple things at the same time.

Now can you drop the drama so I can go back to holding EiRRMod's penis while he codes the warmap?

[salan]

And the idea that we should "just trust" him being the only real support for this system,

i don't think I have ever said to trust him .. hopefully tanks incentive works

[Illegal_Carrot]

EiRRMods strengths are in a field that no one else can accomplish anything.

I understand that only EiRRMod can work on the launcher, while only certain people know how to work the RGDs and so on. I didn't say that resources are being wasted on multiple projects at once, or that BoB needs to help EiRRMod code the launcher or anything like that.
But to change so many systems at once, to do all these things that undermine the basics of what EiR is and has been, and what people have come to know EiR as, seems like a pretty bad idea, and not what the mod needs or the community wants.

We've been told time and time again that the community's input is valued, and that feedback is always considered.
Yet when virtually the entire community agrees on something (in this case, that the doctrine reworks are unnecessary and are, in fact, the opposite of what they want) we all get outright ignored without even receiving a legitimate response or argument.
So what is it? Do you give a shit about what the community wants or not?
If not, then fine. If you make the mod to how you see fit, and the community is just along for the ride, then say that.
But don't tell us you care about our opinions and then blatantly ignore us.

[brn4meplz]

I think you need to go through all the pages of this thread.

Attitudes are polarized on the work. but it's a pretty even split. Making the claim "not what the community wants" isn't exactly accurate

Much like all the features changes before it you'll probably come to find this one a better solution

[Illegal_Carrot]

Making the claim "not what the community wants" isn't exactly accurate.

In the case of the doctrine reworks being a bad idea, it is 100% accurate. Almost every community member who posted in there agreed with me to some extent; Myst was the only non-dev member to actually defend the rework. 12:1 isn't a good ratio when it comes to the community's lack of confidence in one of the dev team's decisions. Yet we were never even given a legitimate response to our concerns. And you wonder why some of us are so disgruntled?

As for EiRRMod's suggested rework of the leveling system, I haven't tallied the votes on each side, so to speak. But even if it is 50-50, that still raises so many questions and concerns that (similar to the doctrine reworks) look like they will never get answers.
Why not ask for suggestions, instead? Why not ask for the community to put forward their ideas for a system that fixes the same problem and accomplishes the same goals, that everyone can agree on (or at lest more than just 50% of the community)? Why not ask around and get everyone's input, instead of just telling us to trust that yours will be better?

Much like all the features changes before it you'll probably come to find this one a better solution

I hope so, I really do. And I'm not trying to sabotage the development of the mod, or scare off the community. In fact, the only reason I've made such a fuss instead of just abandoning the mod already is precisely because I do care.
But I have serious concerns with certain decisions being made, and certain directions the mod is headed in, as does the rest of the community. And yet we can't seem to get an actual response from anyone who has any say in anything, nor does it seem like what we have to say has any impact on what's being done.

[Mysthalin]

The reason why the community isn't specifically asked is because it eventually boils down to requests of Robot Hitler making an appearance... That's my idea of it, anyway.

I would also like to add that I'm under the impression the community is very well being listened to by the devs in both the doctrine reworks and the overall changes in warmap implementation. But if you want to play conspiracy theorists and disagree with that - it's fine. That's your lives.

[Smokaz]

About the doctrine reworks, what made them unneccessary? A lot of abilities weren't working or were completely unbalanced. Was it unneccessary to fix abilities not working or imbalanced ones?

[Unkn0wn]

In the case of the doctrine reworks being a bad idea, it is 100% accurate. Almost every community member who posted in there agreed with me to some extent; Myst was the only non-dev member to actually defend the rework. 12:1 isn't a good ratio when it comes to the community's lack of confidence in one of the dev team's decisions. Yet we were never even given a legitimate response to our concerns. And you wonder why some of us are so disgruntled?

Honestly now? You claim the 'entire community' is against something. I hope you realise you are part of the 'loud' minority. If we based every decision this mod has ever faced on what the loud minority felt was best then EIR would have not seen a lot of the progress brn4me described in his earlier posts. So please, don't speak in the name of the entire community.

We are trying to create a better , more accessible, mod for everyone, keeping into account the wishes and needs of every type of player. And while yes, the hardcore player who really likes to grind 60 games to get to level 9 may see this as a step backwards for them personally, it is our belief that the majority of the playerbase (I'm talking primarily the new and casual playerbase) not represented on this forum will feel differently.

Does that mean we'll just ignore everything the hardcore playerbase wants? Of course not, what we're effectively trying to do here is combine elements of both, creating a system in which there is room for individual gain and grind, giving players an incentive to play more while not alienating a large group of players at a disadvantage at the back of the grindingbus (because they're either new or have less time to play).

We as developers of this mod, we do not feel linked with either group because we try to keep an overview of community concerns and what's best for this mod in the long term.

Why not ask for suggestions, instead? Why not ask for the community to put forward their ideas for a system that fixes the same problem and accomplishes the same goals, that everyone can agree on (or at lest more than just 50% of the community)? Why not ask around and get everyone's input, instead of just telling us to trust that yours will be better?

Why not propose something then? Seriously, we've gone 10+ pages on this and -no offence- ALL you have done is bickered and moaned about the changes when you could have spent all of that time coming up with something that is actually constructive to us. We never said 'our system' was superior to anything because no one has actually come up with anything.

We very much welcome all suggestions, that's why we're all here. If we honestly didn't give a rat's ass about what our community thought we wouldn't have a forum, now would we? We also wouldn't bother defending our views and debating with the community.

haven't seen BoB actually play a game in months, and yet he's totally redesigning all the doctrines himself with little-to-no input from anyone else.

Bob has enough knowledge in this game to be able to design something largely by himself. Especially given the simple fact that there is a strict design document with guidelines he follows.  But that's where it stops, at design. With the balance team, with the other developers and with community meetings and forum input we are trying to go over these drafts and take out what doesn't work or what's not acceptable, often bringing up new ideas and design elements.

When Bob is done, I can guarantee you the Balance team, which is composed primarily of people that actually play this mod on a regular basis, is going to go over it and start finetuning. (Or outright change some things as they see fit, they have that power)

yet when virtually the entire community agrees on something (in this case, that the doctrine reworks are unnecessary and are, in fact, the opposite of what they want) we all get outright ignored without even receiving a legitimate response or argument.

You know, I noticed you only started 'opposing' the doctrine rework after your idea for an Armour doctrine was shot down. I hope you are not letting your personal feelings get in the way here, because we didn't mean to offend you. I can guarantee your idea was actually brought up in the development forums, and on the balance forums.

these forums have done this so many times in the past. pretty much at least once for every change and iteration of the mod.

This is true, I can probably start recycling statements from the past 4 years in which I had to defend the mod, its developers and a design decision.  

[Spartan_Marine88]

We are trying to create a better , more accessible, mod for everyone, keeping into account the wishes and needs of every type of player. And while yes, the hardcore player who really likes to grind 60 games to get to level 9 may see this as a step backwards for them personally, it is our belief that the majority of the playerbase (I'm talking primarily the new and casual playerbase) not represented on this forum will feel differently.

Problem, once again you are outright ignoring/twisting words. We never liked the 60 game grind we said it was too DAMN HIGH.

Your solution - remove it entirely because apparently this was the mods direction all along

We as developers of this mod, we do not feel linked with either group because we try to keep an overview of community concerns and what's best for this mod in the long term.
 Why not propose something then? Seriously, we've gone 10+ pages on this and -no offence- ALL you have done is bickered and moaned about the changes when you could have spent all of that time coming up with something that is actually constructive to us. We never said 'our system' was superior to anything because no one has actually come up with anything.

I am pretty sure things have been suggested, and out right ignored. One of the best ideas i have heard, was keep it the same, toss in the warmap and REDUCE grind

You know, I noticed you only started 'opposing' the doctrine rework after your idea for an Armour doctrine was shot down. I hope you are not letting your personal feelings get in the way here, because we didn't mean to offend you. I can guarantee your idea was actually brought up in the development forums, and on the balance forums.

And this is another sore spot for a alot of regulars, as we thought the doctrine was out right better. Sure it had some issues here and there, and all arguments against it 'shooting it down' were weak and unsupported

This is true, I can probably start recycling statements from the past 4 years in which I had to defend the mod, its developers and a design decision. 

And this is evidence that you aren't listening. Just re-throwing shit out and not even paying attention

[Smokaz]

Jesus guys.

Some players seem to think that EIRR is some kind of democracy. It's not. During my stay here, my many interactions, my attempts to sway opinions, gain access, trust etc, I have learned 1 thing.

EIRR leadership, is a Patriarchy. I'm not going to explain it further, you can look it up yourself, and theorize the implications.

About being 'listened to' and 'heard' :

There's a huge difference between having the right of speech, and the right of vote.

Your opinion counts - but only to the degree that it higlights information the leadership wasn't aware of - or they already agree with it, or it convinces them. They can then decide to try to implement it. The opinion itself has no 'leg' to stand on, or way to force itself through.

Accept that the input is filtered - and what's liked is taken in - Thats the way it works. Don't accept it.. but of what relevance is your accept?

And actually meaning to shit on your parade, carrot:

Your "whole community agrees with me" thread had 5-6 people posting they agreed.

If you wanna gather data for a prop war.. http://www.surveymonkey.com

It's free to register, up to 10 questions per survey.

Find out what the people really think. Don't rely on conjecture and poster laziness in checking your 'facts'.

[skaffa]

I think starting at lvl 5 like we do now is pretty nice.
You start out with something, and the road to lvl 9 is not that long.

Also, we used to grind so long just to get 1 account to lvl 9.
Now you can switch it up and try out different things.
Its also a lot easier to get a second lvl 9 account. Its very usefull if everyone has an Axis AND an Allied account worth playing on, so games fill up faster.

[Unkn0wn]

EIRR leadership, is a Patriarchy

I'm guessing you used the wrong term, lol.

We have practically no women in EIR so yes, technically men dominate the EIRR social system.

[Smokaz]

That depends on how you interpretate women, property and children.



give it more thought, you'll see the scary scope of how well it fits.

[Unkn0wn]

Next one of you to continue this will have their posts removed.

Get back on topic.

[Mysthalin]

Since my post has drowned in the drama, reposting it :


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.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Since my post has drowned in the drama, reposting it :


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.

I think, unless you can 'disable' a unit from veting up via a button, this is a terrible idea.

If there is a button to stop troops from vetting then its a good one.

[AmPM]

I don't understand why doing well would be punished by decreased gains while doing poorly would be encouraged?

Again, make XP gain dependent on winning games, you lose a game, your units gain no XP.

[Groundfire]

I think, unless you can 'disable' a unit from veting up via a button, this is a terrible idea.

If there is a button to stop troops from vetting then its a good one.

That blatantly allows players to avoid the vet restrictions.

Tbh, it makes perfect sense in the long run. Look at veterancy gain on a curved scale. They gotta hit a wall sometime and on a general note, this will reduce vet whoring while making obtaining high vet units rewarding.

An experienced company full of veteran soldiers should gain less from their kills because they arnt learning anything new.

this coupled with the implementation of (i would hope) a 5 level vet system with smaller scaling bonuses would make for a very interesting and rewarding side grind.

[AmPM]

Except that some of those soldiers are not vets, and in reality would be learning at an increased rate due to having experienced soldiers on hand to teach them.