Too Many Doc Choices?

[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

[Tymathee]

So I've been pondering, is the reason why the doctrines seem so...diluted, is because there are too many choices?

Back in EIR 1.6, there were 3 tiers and 4 columns, (or was it 4 by 4?) but now with Doc specialization and doc unlocks there are 21 total choices. Not saying the old was better, but I think it'd be much much easier to balance if there weren't so many choices.

I say keep the way doc specializations are but limit the unlocks to just 6 instead of 8 and limit it to only units and off maps.

Or maybe even have an off map section and unit unlock section (getting idea from ampm btw) and have it so you can either pick a t3 off map or a t1+t2 off map or a t1+t2 unit unlock or t3 unit unlock. This way you can move things like specialty weapons thats in the top doc unlock tier into the doc specials and that's less percentage buffs but also change the way you play.

[BigDick]

it was 4x4 where you could get 4xT1 3xT2 2xT3 1xT4 =10 and now maximum 12 choices usually around 10 too

and a choice is never bad

if the doctrines would'nt have been reworked multiple times im pretty sure most would not play this shit anymore

same goes for choices in doctrines

as long as people are interested to try out some new stuff and to alter their doctrine choices they will play

[AmPM]

Tym, the reason isn't too many choices, it's poor doctrine design.

[Tymathee]

Tym, the reason isn't too many choices, it's poor doctrine design.

well i'm asking the question. are the doc designs bad because there are too many choices?

think about it. 3 docs each side, right?

12 x 3 = 36 x 4 = 144 different choices on doc specializations
on bottom it's 108 different choices.

for a total of 252 separate doctrine entries that have to be created and at the same time try not to mirror things (which happens)

so what do you do? you come up with random crappy things cuz ur desperate for new ideas, you copy others etc.

if you scale it down, or generalize certain choices then you make it easier, imo.

[nugnugx]

Like AmPm said , it's not the ammount.

[lionel23]

It's not the choices Tym, it's the poor design in doctrine trees that's is what is causing a problem, as you yourself said in another thread it's their 'goal', which currently is flawed and lacking in a lot of respects.

[nugnugx]

What doctrines should be imo :

- Have a visible impact in-game or in launcher (meaning the effect of abilities, like old FLdash doctrines)

- every tree be usefull in a different way (t4 should always be powerfull  and it should be the signature of a doctrine and specific tree as you can have only 1 no matter what will you take)

What doctrines should not be :

- have small buffs that have small impact on units and gameplay


A full t4 company should be bringing walkers , raining down fire and shooting orbital lasers compared to new company.

Currently a full t4 brings an additional wounded hungry soldier from an eastern front campaign over a new company. It is a buff - but not realy anything special or to be enthusiastic about.


tbh i don't remember why the 4x4 doctrine system was changed to current one.

[Tymathee]

well one of the main reason why i'd like to see it change to my idea is so that you can integrate weapon unlocks into the specialization, which btw does specialize the company. Like for armor, they can make a tree called "armored support" and there are unlocks and buffs which help infantry pave the way for tanks or support the tank and vice versa. while you can have a heavy hitters tree that excels in taking out tanks but minimizes your ability to fight infantry and then a tree for survival, you put the allied war machine in it and your tank can last longer on the field but get no offensive buffs etc.

a lot of the ways the docs are structured now, a lot of companies can be jack of all trades

[nugnugx]

well one of the main reason why i'd like to see it change to my idea is so that you can integrate weapon unlocks into the specialization, which btw does specialize the company. Like for armor, they can make a tree called "armored support" and there are unlocks and buffs which help infantry pave the way for tanks or support the tank and vice versa. while you can have a heavy hitters tree that excels in taking out tanks but minimizes your ability to fight infantry and then a tree for survival, you put the allied war machine in it and your tank can last longer on the field but get no offensive buffs etc.

a lot of the ways the docs are structured now, a lot of companies can be jack of all trades

that would limit too much company building and in the end you'd have a company vs one specific counter.

too much rock paper scissor , people would stack having all 3 of them and be unbeatable.

What EIR needs is the freedom of building company , not limiting it. People should not be limited in any way of building company so your opponent will not ever know what will you bring in.

Even if you are armor,  and you will be spamming rifleman only with hts and no tanks - that is an indication of good freedom of building and it should go this way , not in the other way of limiting even more.

[smurfORnot]

I see more 2xT3's that are better than current T4's 

[COHCommando]

fail topic

[Tymathee]

I see more 2xT3's that are better than current T4's 

agreed and it's cheaper.

[8thRifleRegiment]

as allies, i really doubt it, many of the allied T4s are monster sauce while going axis dual T3 is way more popular becuase thier T4s are pretty bad except maybe 3

[WildZontar]

IMO, if they would just remake the doctrines so that they are all awesome again I would find this game much more enjoyable.

[AmPM]

Here is the problem with current doctrines:

Lack of focus.

The doctrines rarely focus on making your company AWESOME!!!11!! at one or two things. Instead, they all try to buff your company to handle all things decently (outside of some US doctrines).

This is fail, a balanced doctrine that covers all the bases dies to a focused doctrine that spams its advantages.

See the Defensive Doctrine, other than using the Volks nades, it doesn't do a damned thing better than Blitz other than have some shitty offmaps. The same goes for most Brit doctrines, they are all spread out (RCA buffs infantry, Arty and tanks/light vehicles) without any actual flavor or focus other than 1 or 2 units/offmaps.

You could have 10 trees per doctrine and 5 unlock trees and still have great gameplay, as long as each tree was unique and contributed equally to the game.

[brn4meplz]

Defensive does have some short ended areas, I'll concede that but it has one of the strongest Tier 2's out there. That buff to Incremental Accuracy makes machine guns insane

[spinn72]

RCA buffs croms way too well.
+20% acc and +20% pen?
I mean, come on!