Eir restrictions.......

[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

[Akranadas]

I´m trying to suggest a system where a less experienced player like yourself still has a chance against hardcore gamers like me, but where it is still possible to get a bit more competetion in from players that want more. The current way this DBB system is is in favour of 2 games per day players all the way.
Look at my suggestion 2 posts up.

I am FAR from being less experienced player, I conserve my companies and units to a point in which I lose 1 to 5 squads a games. The DBB system favours both sides, you can play your 6 games a day and still get rewarded for it, up to 7 cps and 17+ rbs for a day.

The proposed DBB system is fair considering it'll take you up to 6 games to gain all the worthwhile CPs and rbs. Thats 2 games per company, and with only 2 resupplies, that is quite adequate for a days worth of games. This means you get all over your companies fairly battle hardened, gained some veterancy and you get those CPs/rbs.

[fldash]

Akranadas: actually it's a max of 7CP / day... 

[Akranadas]

Ah, I see.... sneaky 

Okay, heres my quick run down of the DBB

With the new DBB system, you get up to 7 cps a day from defending and attacking. That means thats about 6 games, which is 2 for each company. Now, you get "2" resupplies per company, that means after those 2 games with each company, you'll have 1 resupply for each company for the next day. This gets you ready for another round of 6 games.

[fldash]

No, there are no more restrictions on how many times you can resupply a company ( I guess I should have made that clear ).  Every 2 games, you get a re-supply, you just can't use it on the company you last played.

[Akranadas]

dammit, there goes my well thought out argument

[Kolath]

Dwindling Battle Boni:

Make it easier. Maybe like this.

Attack win: 3 CP, 5 RBs, (drop the Spoils of War, it´s an unnessecary addition and noone knows what it does anyway)
Defense Wins: 2 CP, 3 RBs
Any loss: 1 CP, 1 RB

Hard cap of 10 Cp´s max per day. Attacking and Defending variety is already promoted with with the sector system and the different rewards. And it would motivate you to play than more 2 games a day.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you don't have a problem with caps, its just that the 7CP cap is too low and you would prefer a 10 CP cap?

However, under this system, you could still max out your CP after 4 games (assuming you always attack and always win).  And your statements aside, you always had to play at least 4 games per day to max out CP either via wins or losses.  There is no disincentive to play more than 2 games.

So from the quote I gather that your complaint is also that the current system forces players to attack AND defend in order to max out CPs for the day?  From my understanding, the current system is designed to encourage people to both attack and defend.  But it is of course entirely possible that this artificial limitation is restrictive in an unfun way, which is I think the heart of your problem with the system.

However, you said "Attacking and Defending variety is already promoted with with the sector system and the different rewards."  But under your system, you are always better off attacking because you get more RBs and more CPs per game and you cap territory.  Why would you want to defend?  Therefore, I suggest ammending it so that for attack wins you get say 3 CP and 3 RB and for defense wins you get 2 CP and 5 RB.  Think of it as you getting resupplied more in your defensive position than you do as you move forward.  (Though of course the diminishing returns to RB would still apply here).  Does that seem like a workable compromise?

This would:
1. Remove the restriction on attack/defend
2. Continue to promote an equilibrium of ~4-8 games per day (depending on how often you win)
3. Offer a clear difference in incentives between attacking and defending.

Though the attack/defend issue is largely temporary, because once we get the warmap, the map will determine attack/defend.  I think the exact numbers are open to ammendment as well.  What if we stuck with the 7 CP max, but removed the attack/defend restriction, would that make you happy?

[Unkn0wn]

@ Akranadas
You must use 2 companies, else it ain't going to work though... and to take full benefit of the 2 resupplies per day you should use all 3 companies.

[Apex]

I dont want cp´s for all games.

As said, i got 3 big issues:

- you get only 1 cp for the second battle you attack/defend, nothing afterwards. Thats not enough compared to what a game can cost you, and it reduces the motivation to play drastically.
- The best of the best can get 7 cp´s per day For The Same Amount Of Games Played where the worst player gets 4 cp´s.
- giving different amounts for first and second game and none for lost games directly but afterwards is unnecessary complicated.

Of course i understand how it works(seems that some still dont) and it´s not that big of an issue, but it just adds to the overall impression of the mod, just as stated in the pc games and pc action reviews.

And again, what i think about it:

Attack win: 3 CP, 5 RBs, (drop the Spoils of War, it´s an unnessecary addition and noone knows what it does anyway)
Defense Wins: 2 CP, 3 RBs
Any loss: 1 CP, 1 RB

Hard cap of 10 Cp´s and 15 rb´s max per day.
Simple and effective. Would not allow to get too strong and avoids confusion.
Only attacking is not better, because it is more troop expensive and the risk too loose increases too, if you only defend your safer, but get less outcome and no sectors gained, imo attacking/defending does not need to be enforced more. Before the DBB System players varied as well. Actually, the need to to do 1 certain type of game to max your cp´s will make it even more difficult to find games.
Players playing few games will still get good stuff, but you can also play more and get better than average.

[Unkn0wn]

Games don't cost you anything, you get resupplies every 2 battles.
On top of that you can also gain tons and tons of XP on your units.

[Apex]

Of course games cost you something. Loosing troops costs availability, gained veterancy and maybe even a resupply option you would have saved otherwise. All occurs more often when attacking, that´s why you get more benefits from it when winning (which is harder to achieve as well). I dont think there is a need to enforce 2 attacks and 2 defenses as a must per day by cp´s, if someone wants to take the risk and the costs to gain fast in attacking or slow and steady with defending it should be his choice, but right now, players vary themselves automatically already.

[Unkn0wn]

The current system works because it forces those willing to gain more CPs to both attack and defend.
If we'd just give bigger bonusses to attacking everyone would want to attack.

[Thtb-Ally]

I suggest:

2 CP for winning a game
1 CP for loseing a game

10 CP´s max a day.

Keeping it simpel

[CommanderNewbie]

I'm not sure where the notion that an attacking player sacrifices more in a battle than the defending player.  Whether you're attacking or defending, you're still playing the same game of sector control.  While the defender gets to deploy first, the attacker has an often sizable VP advantage.

[Thtb]

And the attacker (may) gets a bonus from his abilitys.

[CommanderNewbie]

And the attacker (may) gets a bonus from his abilitys.

So might the defender (Defensive has a branch option that gives an extra minute to deploy) so it kind of balances out.  Regardless, my point is that a battle is no easier or less risky for the defender.  I think we can all agree on that.

[CommanderNewbie]

also, food for thought :

The game is more enjoyable when you ignore the daily caps.  I was a lot better off before I started reading up on this crap.

[Ucross]

Defenders win on stalemates.  This is an inherent advantage they have.  They also deploy first.  Both of those should make defending somewhat easier than attacking.  How much I'm not sure.

[CommanderNewbie]

Defenders win on stalemates.

I actually did not know that.  Then again, I've never known anyone here to be pleased with a stalemate on either side.

[Skunker]

Oh, they limit your CP's now too? Shit do they want to stop you from gaining anything?

Meh, good thing I stopped playing after the wipe.  I'm with all the other people here who are for a different system which doesn't limit expansion....i mean, if you play that company all day long shouldn't you be at an advantage over others who don't? The only thing we wanted was double resource times so that EVERYONE could play more games. It didn't matter if you were a nut like APEX who played 10 games or someone like me who played maybe 1-3, you just wanted that.

The last time I've seen any kind of MMO limit people's daily progress this much is never. Ultimately these restrictions only slow hardcore gamers anyways. If apex plays every day to his cap then he will, in a month or so, be at the same place he could've been in about three days. Nobody would play an MMO game if you couldn't level, just as nobody will play EiR With such insane restrictions. There's simply no incentive to play much at all.

[Ucross]

Who in their right mind would like to play a 60 minute dual if they were a lvl 10 WoW player vs a lvl 60 WoW player?  No one. It wouldn't be fun for either player. 

This game is not an MMORPG, it's an MMORTS (actually massive is a bit extreme =P).

We want to keep players on reasonably competitive levels and let their skill be the main deciding factor, not their gametime.