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

[Mgallun74]

uggh, just spent my first half of lunch reading all this..

uh, i got headache.

[Groundfire]

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.

I dont think you will really even notice the diminishing returns until you get a whole company full of vet 3's.

It's something we cant really theory craft about till it's got some play testing.

[TheWindCriesMary]

 I think Salan developed an elegant solution in FoF, with the idea of (I believe) up to 10 vet levels. Earlier in this thread the idea of small incremental vet bonuses was mentioned, in which case 10 vet levels would be really neat.

 I don't think XP for units should only be rewarded for units from the side that won, but I think having 10 vet levels with small bonuses per level (as opposed to heavy bonuses crammed into just 3 levels) is far more admirable as a solution.

 Ask Salan how he did it. The vet icons he has, even for vet 7-10, are not hard to determine or make out in game.

 -Wind

[Unkn0wn]

If Salan could further elaborate on how he went about doing this in FoF, that would be nice.
It sounds like an interesting idea for sure.

[AmPM]

Yea, never mind my post earlier in this thread detailing how to do it....lol at Unknown.

Anyway, I'm still curious why the mod is hellbent on punishing good play as much as it can while at the same time propping up the poor players. It makes no sense.

On a side note, I figured a way around that retarded XP penalty. Just delete and replace any and all units every game other than the ones you want to keep vet on.

[Unkn0wn]

I was talking about how he did the icons and how much work it was for him to implement 10 levels.
And perhaps if he could do it in EIR :p.

[Spartan_Marine88]

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.

Thats not what i meant, i want a button to be able to stop myself from getting a whole shitload of vet 2 riflemen, as there so easy to vet up. I always end up with 15 squads of vet 1 rifles as it is, now i can just refuse to vet them further. But in your way im gonna be stuck with craploads of vet 2-3 rifles and not be able to vet anything useful

[skaffa]

VET
IS
WHERE
ITS
AT

[AmPM]

wow, your really full of yourself arent you? sure your a good player, coming going around saying people who arent as good as you shouldnt get any PP/XP etc is not the way to go either..

I'm not saying they shouldn't get XP or PP towards their company. I am saying that XP for units shouldn't be handed out for not playing well and that it shouldn't become less worthwhile to keep the better you play.

The mod should encourage players to play their best instead of encouraging them to not improve.

I don't understand why, as a poor player, you would want the game to help you. That's like having autoaim on in a shooter because your KD ratio is terrible.

TBH, it's nobodies fault but your own if you refuse to learn.

At the same time, you need to keep new players playing, which is why people are against penalties for sucking. Fine, so why penalize them when they get better?

[Mysthalin]

Sell the vetted ones off? Let them die valiantly on the field of battle? Nobody's forcing your hand on the t key .
(though I did propose to have different "weights" on the vet gain depending on what unit has the veterancy)

What this will ensure is that people who can keep their units on for longer periods of time (killing more) and alive(retreatead at the right time) will have more veterancy. Not the person who can hoard up enough SPs to just be able to vet up ANYTHING he likes. At the same time, if you don't have a lot of veterancy - it'll be easier for you to catch up with the person who does have a lot of vet.

It will also end up in there not being a blatant hard-cap on veterancy (you can have as much as you can possibly keep), and a good enough reason for a person to continue playing the game even with a fairly well-vetted army. His other troops may want to gain some status as well!

[AmPM]

Thats not what i meant, i want a button to be able to stop myself from getting a whole shitload of vet 2 riflemen, as there so easy to vet up. I always end up with 15 squads of vet 1 rifles as it is, now i can just refuse to vet them further. But in your way im gonna be stuck with craploads of vet 2-3 rifles and not be able to vet anything useful

This is why you just delete them all after every game they gain vet and replace them with new ones. System circumvented.

Also, instead of building companies around keeping things alive, just build them around suicide effective units. So lots of assault style, with cheap disposable AT and vehicle spam.


Myst: Because allowing units to die for no gain only makes your opponents stronger in later games. Anything that survives on accident like support teams or a vehicle, well, just delete it. Never allow units that are combat ineffective to be killed by your enemy, it rewards them XP.

[Smokaz]

Sorry, but if Brn4meplz says its ownage my input capacity is filled and I cannot change my impression of it as the 'best thing since a summer fling'.

[EIRRMod]

Unkn0wn posted earlier:-
<snip>

Dont mix and match quotes please - Unkn0wn only has an overview of whats going to happen ;p

[EIRRMod]

But hey, i guess we just get tired, of certain people telling us that its all going to be great and this new method is so awesome. Don't worry that its sounds so different, trust us we don't even play our own mod anymore.

I cant play much atm due to time constraints (and, I dont like playing in a 'half-finished' feeling state)



Rest assured, when these systems are in, Im gonna be racking up the games / kills - this is the biggest thing Ive been waiting for for a while!

[EIRRMod]

I haven't seen Lucifer play in months, either, and yet he still maintains his position of lead dev, while designing the warmap to whatever specifications he sees fit, and totally trashing the current progression system in favor of one he's completely created himself, with no input from the community.

You do realise that this change was pushed for by the community (less grind) - and thats whats going to happen.

I personally LIKE the grind ;p

[EIRRMod]

That's certainly all true, though the point I'm getting at is that the community feels left out to such a great degree that many have simply given up. And the idea that we should "just trust" him being the only real support for this system, accompanied by the idea that "EIRRmod doesnt need to play regularly" to create a warmap designed solely around gameplay are both very unrealistic and disenheartening ones.

I'm also not saying that EiRRMod needs to lose his position of lead dev (I have a feeling that's what some people will think I meant), but I'm saying that he (and the rest of the dev team) need to be playing a lot more, as well as interacting with the community more, in order to create a product that the community will actually want. The only real interaction anyone seems to have had with the devs recently is through the doctrine discussions, which most people were unable to attend, and many more felt to be a joke.

And... Why all the rage?  Its going to be a switch of 'grindenabled == true' to fix.  If it DOESNT work, it will be easy to revert back.  Im not an idiot, and I CERTAINLY dont ignore the community.

Thank you yet again however for painting me in that light =p

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Just ignore him EiRmod.



 I found your post in response to mine enlightening, and believe me I was concerned. And though i don't speak for the community, and I think the people who keep pretending they do are absoloutely hilarious in how deluded they are, I think this change will come and go the same way every big change has done.

 People will theory craft about why it will fail, get used to it, start to like it (but never admit it!), and then move on.

 Also, your revelation that elements of competitiveness and individual-motivation will remain in the finished product are encouraging - when people start to read what you're writing instead of fabricating their own narratives (some big fans of scarecrow arguments here) I think we will find a lot less of the "Rage" you spoke about a bit more support.

Now back to the cave with you! How dare you stop work to respond to silly accusations!

 -Wind

[EIRRMod]

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?

I was chatting with puddin' the other day about this, heres a basic rundown of what I said:

puddin' was of the opinion that we should 'just fix' what was broken in the doctrines and not 'redo' the entire lot.

I agreed.  We're NOT redoing the entire lot, in fact with the first four doctrines, most of the abilities just got tweaked / moved a bit.

I countered that fixing a broken system is not a good place to start (from a development stance) - and that the discussions on the drafts (which pulled a lot from our current implementations) were to pull out the major concerns with the current state.

Thus, I was basically telling him that 'fixing what we have' and 'reworking' were in essence the same thing =)

[EIRRMod]

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.
<snip>

I love you smokey - I will have an admin page just for you to play with In December.
<3

[Illegal_Carrot]

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?

I don't feel this is the right place to discuss this anymore, especially not with the amount of what I have to say on the topic. I guess I'll bring back my old No Rework thread, and talk about it there.

Why not propose something then?

We have been. AmPm has been been pushing his idea in this thread and gotten very little actual response. I put forward an idea for company progression in another thread and got no response. People have been sharing ideas, and not even getting a courtesy 'Thank you for your opinion, we are considering it.' If you are taking into account the community's opinions, then let us know that, and add a bit more transparency to the process. Otherwise people feel like they are being ignored and just give up on contributing or caring, which many have already.

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.

How can someone who doesn't play the game, doesn't know the community's position on anything, doesn't know how things play out in an actual game scenario and doesn't and doesn't know the metagame, design a system around all these components? Sure it may be balanced later down the line, and it may work to an extent, but would it not be exponentially more well-designed and enjoyable to play if it were designed by someone who knows the community and plays the game with some frequency?

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.

No hard feelings there, mate, though I can see why you'd think that. That's not the reason for any of this, though it is disappointing that all the work I did and the support I garnered amounts to nothing more than Crocodile Dundee reference.

Carrot, I had decided to wait till you came on vent because one of us has to be the bigger guy

I was on-and-off vent last night till 3AM (PST), and never saw you once. You'll have to give it more than 12 hours before you call me a fleeing coward, though I'd love to discuss EiR's doctrines or company progression system with you.

But until then, please stop saying "The entire community".

When ever I reference the community in anything I say, it's because some portion of the community does agree with me on that. I only posted my AB thread after discussing the issue and history of the AB doctrine with many people on Vent for several days. I only posted my Proposed Armor Rework thread after I got the input and support of no less than a dozen people on Vent/through PMs. I only posted my Fix The Mod thread after I was approached by Speedy^ and a few others who wanted me to make a thread for them (they asked me to do it for them because their English and grammar isn't very good).
I don't just say 'people agree with me' to sound more impressive, I say it because they really do agree with me.


As for my ideas on the company progression system, I'll go back, find my posts on the subject, gather my thoughts and and put it all together as best I can. But before that, I have to get my nails done.