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]

This post is in response to Smokaz’s rant about the new “weapons Cache System” where he does a great job of summoning up some of the problem of this MOD.  
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=20754.msg364930#msg364930

In my humble opinion the doctrinal system has a fundamental flaw that dates back to when fldash created the mod – the problem of free buffs. I have tried to create an example of how we can price all unit related buffs. I would like to stress that this is only an example so please don’t read too much into the specific values or unlocks!

The idea is to give the player lots of possible upgrades/buffs but each is priced on an individual unit level. This makes none of the buffs better than others, just different way of spending you resources. This also helps the balance between new and experienced companies since leveling up only increases you options, not you power level.

The “New Doctrines” are divided into 3 parts:

1: Doctrinal specific units.
  
2: Unit Buffs/Abilities.

3: A new "strategy" category containing doctrinal flavoring abilities or War Map specific abilities. These unlocks does not affect unit performance and are the only unlocks that doesn’t cost resources.

[EIRRMod]

In my humble opinion the doctrinal system has a fundamental flaw that dates back to when fldash created the mod – the problem of free buffs.

This is slated to be discussed and possibly change to costing.

Even though the top tree (and old EIR the upper buffs) had 0 cost, I do believe some cost needs to be associated to the buffs that they are given.

And technically, it probably should be resources, but there may be other ways to do it.

Just letting ya know - Im on the same page Pauli

[Mister Schmidt]

Ughh, having to pay for your doctrine..

Me no likey.

[EIRRMod]

Ughh, having to pay for your doctrine..

Me no likey.

Just particular parts.

Take this example.

Blitz T3 bonus
+20% damage to tanks

Armour T3 bonus
+20% damage to tanks

Now lets just, for the sake of argument, pretend that blitz and armour tanks are currently equal in every way (which, they arent, but whatever).

The blitz player chooses 3 tanks in his company, while the armour player has 6.
Already, the two companies, equal in theory with their doctrines, are now not.

If each buff cost 20MU, then it has some sort of balance / cost ratio.  The buffs dont even have to be that much cost - just balanced AGAINST EACH OTHER.

[TheVolskinator]

"Flame spammage": All Sappers get a Flamethrower and Elite armor/crits (+5 MU). Better? Narb.

I like it Pauli, now write something up that costs for Inf Doc and also wont get skewered by Weapon Cache costs .

[DarkSoldierX]

I also disagree with paying for buffs.

Why limit your army like this? There would be no point in doing the tiny bit of grind anyway? It would equate to the same cost effectiveness if this was balanced correctly.

Which puts you at the same position you were at before. No power gained.

And seeing as we will have rather short wars and low grind, why take away the increases power a higher level would have?

All you have to do it balance some T3's and T4's a little bit better and spread out the buffs.

[Mister Schmidt]

But you've already paid for your doctrine unlock, having to then pay to get the actual buff as well is just, wrong.

However it is, I don't like this idea one itty bit tbh.

It's like going to Pizza Hut and ordering a pizza, only to get told you get charged full price, and then have to pay for the toppings on top of that.

[DarkSoldierX]

One large pizza may be 0.4 in. more than the other large pizza in current EiR, so we should just balance them.

SCREW DIS IDEA!

[SaintPauli]

Just letting ya know - Im on the same page Pauli

I’m glad to hear that!  

There would be no point in doing the tiny bit of grind anyway? It would equate to the same cost effectiveness if this was balanced correctly
 

BINGO! That the whole point!

[Rahx]

Ahmmm, interesting: still I'm concerned. Why are people wasting time on such things like weapons cache/systems while the "Lost and broken doctrines" need more attention... atleast that's what I worry about...

[DarkSoldierX]

I’m glad to hear that!  
BINGO! That the whole point!

Then you and your faction have gained no power throughout the war. Your still on page 1 weither your faction is level 1 or level 9. The whole point of grinding your faction is useless.

[8thRifleRegiment]

They arent "broken" they are unbalanced against each other.

I THINK

In my own opinion the reason why doctrines seem ridiuclous is the current doctrine creation suggests each doctinre should have a line for each type of tactic so every doctrine can do everything.

Whhich i strongly belive is a terribad idea.

Reason behind this is, the company i constantly use as an example is the Defensive company, it sais in its own name.

DEFENSIVE. But yet people compain when its "offensive Line" doesnt stack up to the other doctrines "offenceive line". This is becuase of the way the doctrine is supposed to perform. Its supposed to be about defending. so the entire doctrine should be focoused on so.

Its like an MMO.

The generic MMO build is

Cleric= Heals
Warrior= Tank
Rouge= DPS
Mage= DPS

Now if you gave the warrior the ability to dps just as good as the rouge. Whats the point of picking a lighter armored rouge when you could have a heavily armored warrior? Giving multiple roles to everything creates Imba very very quickly.

Each doctine should be a specialsation. so each player picks a doctrine according to thier playstyle.

If you like hard and fast attacks, you pick blitzkrieg doctrine. You like in and out raid assaults, Airbourne.

Ambushes? Luftwaffe. Anti armor warfare, Tankdestoryers. Allied anti armor- Tank destoryers.

Balanced in General? Infantry company.

Support? Scorched Earth

Its very very simple

[EIRRMod]

I also disagree with paying for buffs.

Why limit your army like this? There would be no point in doing the tiny bit of grind anyway? It would equate to the same cost effectiveness if this was balanced correctly.

Which puts you at the same position you were at before. No power gained.

You misunderstand.

Doctrinal buffs would be cheaper than normal (I am thinking anyway) - and balance themselves AGAINST other doctrine upgrade costs.
Now when all doctrines and players are going to be the same level each game, thus having the same doctrine points and resource points - then the balance works itself out.

The issue here however, is if not done right, then you just get a big clusterfuck of upgrades priced wrong.

[EIRRMod]

Which might I point out, was a primary reason for the Weapons Cache to go in.

Super strong buffs can then be applied to things like a tiger or AB, but have a high cache cost / new MU cost to compensate.

[RikiRude]

I'm not sure who originally started campaigning for this idea, but I've always been skeptical about it, but after having many more games under my belt I can totally see how this can work.

[Mister Schmidt]

Noooooooooo!

Ughhh

[SaintPauli]

The issue here however, is if not done right, then you just get a big clusterfuck of upgrades priced wrong.

The beauty of this system is that you can address those initial imbalances in pricing on an individual level without having to think about the powerlevel of the doctrine as a whole.

A 25% buff can be just as good as a 50% buff if the price is right. 

[SaintPauli]

I'm not sure who originally started campaigning for this idea, but I've always been skeptical about it, but after having many more games under my belt I can totally see how this can work.

You have reached the master level where you no longer need a superior company to win… You are now looking for a balanced game of skill instead of bashing noobs with level 9 companies...

[EIRRMod]

The beauty of this system is that you can address those initial imbalances in pricing on an individual level without having to think about the powerlevel of the doctrine as a whole.

A 25% buff can be just as good as a 50% buff if the price is right. 

Exactly, which is why we'd price on platform as well.

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

It has been an issue thats been concerning me for a while, and I figured, if the doctrines were balanced against each other - then it wouldnt be a problem.  My spam vs your spam == balance.  Problem created, not solved ;p

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

[Spartan_Marine88]

Once again the doctrines are FINE, they dont need to be reworked as thats why we are so behind and at this terrible point as it is. We have redone them how many times? Everytime we have redone it in the past, the doctrines were slamed down half finished and instead of completing its been scrapped. Put all doctrines in, then balance, then lets play for a month or 2 before bitching.

The doctines need tweaking and balancing, not overhauls.

Also, i like there being a strategy to your doctrines ontop of your strategy ingame.

Buffs are not the problem, just making sure you dont overbuff is.