New Doctrinal System

[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

[SaintPauli]

Its a HEAP of work though, so Id need to reserve it for after drafts (0700), and sketch it up during RGD build 0800.

If you say so I will do a complete draft of all 12 doctrines.  

This way, eliminates (or subdues, there has to be SOME benefit...) the economic advantage given from free buffs.

Flexibility in designing the company will alone be enough of an advantage for the skilled players. Others might be encouraged to do the grinding in order to play with units like the Super Pershing and the Tiger Ace.

And technically you don’t even need to do any grinding in order to be able to compete with the higher level companies…  

[Spartan_Marine88]

Tbh, i was trying to be nice, but your 'doctrines' are pretty bland, and to be honest crap. I would not like to have a persistant company based around such a dry and boring idea.


And to the devs, if you really are thinking about changing the docs again (please dont lets just finish this for once) but i mean there have been a million times better suggestions from both AMPM and Lionel.

[Groundfire]

So someone tell me, how does this in any way keep people from spamming the 1-2 units that receive the buffs?

Yeah you gotta pay a token amount for them but who cares. A player will go one tree and take the same build as the other 100 people that did.

[8thRifleRegiment]

imo it doesnt work becuase it encourages spamming even more becuase whatever is the most cost effective will be the only thing people will use

[Groundfire]

I can get behind paying for blatently powerful free buffs, the like of what "Old Carbines" used to be, but tbh, how do you price a T1-T2 or a buff that is like +5% Something? It's not worth it, those would need to be free.

The others tho, you kind of lock yourself into this small box of ranges of which one particular buff can extend to. For example, a +20% damage buff for a T3 cant be compared to +20% damage buff for a T4, for each different vehicle. The prices would have to be cheaper for the T4 but the T3 guy gets the same buff earlier, for a marginally higher cost, and it might be on a Tiger for example as opposed to a sherman.

Ok make the prices equivilant, but then T3 guy with a Tiger is paying more for his lesser doctrine choice which is still more useful than T4 Sherman guy and his damage buff, unless you start tacking on additions to Sherman guy's T4.

Now that you are tacking on additions to T4 Sherman guy's, how do you price "Packages" of buffs vs. similar doctrines and their compositions?


This is much less black and white then you people are making it out to be if you want to have any originality or uniqueness to the doctrines.

[SaintPauli]

The doctines need tweaking and balancing, not overhauls.

Besides encouraging spam, the current system has in most cases lead to one or two optimal build for most doctrines. If you are not doing those few limited build you are (un)knowingly handicapping yourself.

Blitz: Battle Hardened
Terror: Rolling Thunder or Pills   
Defensive: Dual T3 

Luftwaffe: Crete Veterans
Tank Destroyers: APCR
Scorched Earth: None specific but this doctrine is much worse than the other SE

Infantry: Tank Reapers or Operation Overlord
Airborne: You can buy everything
Armor: HVAP or Upgunned Cali spam 
 
Engineers: Hold the line 
Commandoes: Red Devils
Artillery: Dual T3

(I’m not 100% sure about the Brit doctrines)

[Groundfire]

I can come up with about a dozen successful builds for Americans alone. That's a matter of preception and nothing more. What you may not find useful, I find useful. Limiting the buffs down and focusing the doctrines onto a few specific units is what causes build variation to be lost.

[SaintPauli]

how do you price a T1-T2 or a buff that is like +5% Something? It's not worth it, those would need to be free.

You don’t make a 5% buff because it has absolutely no effect on the game. It’s bad design and unnecessary coding…

[SaintPauli]

Tbh, i was trying to be nice, but your 'doctrines' are pretty bland, and to be honest crap.

It was nice that you tried and then decided not to be before I got to answer….

This was also about the idea not the specific proposal.

[SaintPauli]

The others tho, you kind of lock yourself into this small box of ranges of which one particular buff can extend to. For example, a +20% damage buff for a T3 cant be compared to +20% damage buff for a T4, for each different vehicle. The prices would have to be cheaper for the T4 but the T3 guy gets the same buff earlier, for a marginally higher cost, and it might be on a Tiger for example as opposed to a sherman.
 

Actually no. The current system limits the range of the buff because they have to be balance in comparison to each other. This system doesn’t call for balance between the buffs – only a balance of pricing. It also doesn’t matter if the buff/unlock is T1 or T1. You can do whatever buff you want as long as you price it accordingly. 

It’s like saying what is best a P4 or a Tiger? The Tiger is obviously better but pricing evens out the choice in teams of what you get for your resources.

Now that you are tacking on additions to T4 Sherman guy's, how do you price "Packages" of buffs vs. similar doctrines and their compositions?
 

Everything is priced on a single unit basis. You can put multiple different buffs into a single unlock. An example from what I created is the Super Pershing (+5 range, HVAP, 20% less received accuracy).

If your unlock affects multiple units each of those buffs will have to be priced on each unit individually

[Smokaz]

the idea that you gain nothing from level 1 to 9 by adding cost to top unlocks is wrong

you gain choice, you gain force concentration options. in the case of certain current unlocks, you get entire role modification or expansion

im glad to yet again ungratefully and in silent agreement having pushed this mod in a positive direction

[BigDick]

what is the point in getting a special doctrine build (thats currently weak as shit anyways compared to old eir doctrines) that has additional costs attached?

my point of view towards doctrine unlocks was always to get them to make my company stronger and not to get them to make it more expensive

im absolutely against this shit (thats even more crap than the weapon cache which i don't like either because it just foil-clad where the balancing need to be done)

[Smokaz]

Build variation is lost by downsizing and limiting total amount of possible options - not by giving them a price reflecting their effectiveness.

[BigDick]

and why i want to pay e.g. 20% more for a tank to get the 20% more damage of my doctrine T3 when i just can get 20% more tanks?

that does not improve build variations it only limits the amount of units to fewer but stronger ones

next idea will be to make the 20% damage vet3 buff an additional 20% more costs too to complete remove the persistence idea that units become stronger by combat experience

doctrine unlocks/buffs are imho "combat experience" of the whole company

i would rather choose to not get any doctrine buffs and price increases
and build my company with "vanilla" units than this suggested crap

[SaintPauli]

my point of view towards doctrine unlocks was always to get them to make my company stronger

Why do you want a stronger company when everyone also gets a stronger company (except new players). Do you also consider it more fun if you (and everyone else) get 500 extra Munitions? Can’t you see how pointless that is?

Oh and how said that the amount of resources doesn’t need to be adjusted/raised in consideration to the new system?

[Smokaz]

People say companies wouldn't be stronger, at that point readers should stop reading since it simply isnt true that additional options and choices do not strengthen your overall company.

They also assume that a buff cost would need to be completely equal to the investment in multiple basic units

But hey its bigdick posting, if people are reading its their own damn fault

[BigDick]

Why do you want a stronger company when everyone also gets a stronger company (except new players). Do you also consider it more fun if you (and everyone else) get 500 extra Munitions? Can’t you see how pointless that is?

because it makes only some units stronger and forces everyone to benefit by having a special company build (e.g. as armor player relying on vehicles while infantry company player relies on infantry)
and thats a fucking great thing because i play an armor company with armor as my main strength (that doesnt mean spaming only m8 or something since doctrines buff more than one unit nowadays)

if i would need to spend tons of munitions to make my sherman a bit stronger (after having my armor doc unlock) compared to an infantry company sherman then i don't benefit by relying more on tanks and can play every doctrine the same

and thats fucking boring....

[EIRRMod]

I can get behind paying for blatently powerful free buffs, the like of what "Old Carbines" used to be, but tbh, how do you price a T1-T2 or a buff that is like +5% Something? It's not worth it, those would need to be free.

Id agree with that.

The others tho, you kind of lock yourself into this small box of ranges of which one particular buff can extend to. For example, a +20% damage buff for a T3 cant be compared to +20% damage buff for a T4, for each different vehicle. The prices would have to be cheaper for the T4 but the T3 guy gets the same buff earlier, for a marginally higher cost, and it might be on a Tiger for example as opposed to a sherman.

And then you follow up with:

Ok make the prices equivilant, but then T3 guy with a Tiger is paying more for his lesser doctrine choice which is still more useful than T4 Sherman guy and his damage buff, unless you start tacking on additions to Sherman guy's T4.

Now that you are tacking on additions to T4 Sherman guy's, how do you price "Packages" of buffs vs. similar doctrines and their compositions?

Simple.  Most bonuses should have a base MU cost depending on the buff type.
Say for Sherman guy its 10MU + 5MU per 5% damage.
In the package, you could also have 5MU per 2.5% acc or something.

However for the Tiger guy, who recieves his 20% earlier, we need to assume that the doctrines are actually balanced, and that Mr Sherman guy is getting his OWN benefits - just different ones.

This is much less black and white then you people are making it out to be if you want to have any originality or uniqueness to the doctrines.

I disagree.

I believe this will open up avenues to increase bonuses and add in flavour upgrades/buffs that we wouldnt normally consider for the top table.

But this, is why we'll need to have a BIG discussion / meeting about it.

[Smokaz]

ahaahah

[EIRRMod]

im glad to yet again ungratefully and in silent agreement having pushed this mod in a positive direction

Wait what?