Reflections on the patch in EIR

[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

[PonySlaystation]

Great patch and many needed changes so I'll try to keep this criticism short. These a few problems I noticed.

Patch is axis biased

Axis Infantry weapons went down more than allied infantry weapons (for example oak leaves KCH ((that weren't that overpriced)) went down more than the very overpriced rangers and airborne for no obvious reason).

Terror doctrine is MUCH stronger than the Airborne doctrine. Even with the call-in timers and capping timers implemented the doctrine is still very mediocre compared to all the strong buffs in terror. (for example terror has strong infantry buffs in T2, T3 and T4. The only thing airborne has is a T4 which gives them airborne armor for their sucky airborne riflemen). I can explain this further, there are plenty of  more examples.

Weapon cache should include a few more units (mentioned below) and go down in points so it can actually have some effect.

Sticky nades were not included
Commandos were not included
50mm halftrack was not included
HMG AP rounds were not included

The overall amount of Cache points is too many. 60 points makes sure that you can't ever run out of points. It should be lowered to 50 or maybe even 40.

[EIRRMod]

Great patch and many needed changes so I'll try to keep this criticism short. These a few problems I noticed.

Patch is axis biased

Axis Infantry weapons went down more than allied infantry weapons (for example oak leaves KCH ((that weren't that overpriced)) went down more than the very overpriced rangers and airborne for no obvious reason).

Terror doctrine is MUCH stronger than the Airborne doctrine. Even with the call-in timers and capping timers implemented the doctrine is still very mediocre compared to all the strong buffs in terror. (for example terror has strong infantry buffs in T2, T3 and T4. The only thing airborne has is a T4 which gives them airborne armor for their sucky airborne riflemen). I can explain this further, there are plenty of  more examples.

The Doctrine DRAFTS are exactly that.
After full implementation, we can move the doctrine phase to 0800 build, and begin to balance them against each other.

I KNOW people will say 'Well they should have been balanced before entering' - but do you realise HOW much time/effort was put into the drafts to start off with?  If not, it was a lot....

Weapon cache should include a few more units (mentioned below) and go down in points so it can actually have some effect.

Sticky nades were not included
Commandos were not included
50mm halftrack was not included
HMG AP rounds were not included

The overall amount of Cache points is too many. 60 points makes sure that you can't ever run out of points. It should be lowered to 50 or maybe even 40.

This is the first round of cache implementation.

I can list several of my own suggestions, AB Recoiless rifles, satchels etc etc.
Quite a few units and unit upgrades missed out.

[PonySlaystation]

But the airborne and terror doctrine are both new doctrines. It's not like you implemented a doctrine which doesn't match with the "old" doctrines. You implemented two new doctrines that don't even match with each other.

[tank130]

Just because they were released at the same time does not mean they were created as twins and created to compliment each other.
 
They were completed at completely different times. They were released together because of the delay releasing the patch.

The Doctrines are created by a group of people working their asses off to try and come up with good balanced ideas. Try it yourself, it is much harder than you think. It is easy to bitch, not so easy to come up with new ideas that are balanced. Then try taking all nine Doctrine trees and make them balanced with each other.

I challenge to you to try and come up with just one completely balanced doctrine yourself....

Now that all the docs are out (minus scar code) - as EiRRMoD had already stated, we can start the long drawn out process of trying to balance them all against each other.

The Dev team is a group of 10 people, all on different time zones and work schedules. It is impossible for us to test doctrines in a true game environment. Most of the doc abilities are in fact theory crafted. There is just no other way to know how they are going to work until we get them in game in a real game theater. That's why it's called a Beta....

The depressing part about doing that is : no matter how hard we work on it, not everyone in the community is going to agree. There is always going to be people who complain and say we suck at creating a mod........meh

Let's not forget that EiR:R is still in Beta release.......

[Heartmann]

Just because they were released at the same time does not mean they were created as twins and created to compliment each other.
 
They were completed at completely different times. They were released together because of the delay releasing the patch.

The Doctrines are created by a group of people working their asses off to try and come up with good balanced ideas. Try it yourself, it is much harder than you think. It is easy to bitch, not so easy to come up with new ideas that are balanced. Then try taking all nine Doctrine trees and make them balanced with each other.

I challenge to you to try and come up with just one completely balanced doctrine yourself....

Now that all the docs are out (minus scar code) - as EiRRMoD had already stated, we can start the long drawn out process of trying to balance them all against each other.

The Dev team is a group of 10 people, all on different time zones and work schedules. It is impossible for us to test doctrines in a true game environment. Most of the doc abilities are in fact theory crafted. There is just no other way to know how they are going to work until we get them in game in a real game theater. That's why it's called a Beta....

The depressing part about doing that is : no matter how hard we work on it, not everyone in the community is going to agree. There is always going to be people who complain and say we suck at creating a mod........meh

Let's not forget that EiR:R is still in Beta release.......

  The hammer has fallen Well said ^^

[PonySlaystation]

I did already http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=19260.0

@Heartmann, no reason to quote the entire post.

[tank130]

I did already http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=19260.0

@Heartmann, no reason to quote the entire post.

LOL...... Really. This is your serious reply to my post. The following six pages of that thread are people arguing and saying your draft sucks......

Let me know when you create one everyone agrees on. When you do, you will be on the Dev team. In fact maybe we will just hand you the keys to whole thing.

[PonySlaystation]

Now imagine if the dev draft had gone through the same process. It would probably be worse. And no everyone wasn't disagreeing about every single thing, they thought some part was overpowered or unnecessary. In any case it's still better than the current one. Which is just awful. Some ideas are good but it has so many problems.

The buffs are one sided, few in number, illogical and weak.

For example changing capping speed won't affect the actual gameplay much it will just mean backcapping will be alot worse, even to the point where it can break games. Not a good gameplay change at all.

Buffing the sniper even more is also a bad idea since it's already a strong unit.

Airborne overhead and Secured landing zones are probably the worst T3s I have ever seen. Death from Above is also lacking.

The list goes on and on.

Give me a few minutes and I'm sure I can construct a proper draft.

[Heartmann]

Pony you are missing the point!

Tank knows that there are flaws, so does everyone else.

Its not about that, its the fact that you are telling them thing they probably know, or dont want to adress right now considering the already big work load, Which is something that is seemingly hard to grasp is done without anyform of pay. Well may be the work is not all booring must be grattifying and yeilding in someway, but you get my drift.

Tell them the constructive criticque when they ask for it, not before, otherwise its just a probable whine game.

Its about having a discussion not an argument where you state a view taht you think is better and when ppl dont see your point they are moronic.

Just relax, things will sort them selfs out. Untill then make a draft of ideas and views that you can have ready in case they do ask if it makes you happy.

But untill then, try and cool off.

[Malgoroth]

With the flood of people trying out the new doctrines, you will of course see a larger the average number of terror players. I've said before that a doctrines power is magnified when multiple people on one team are using the same one (6 tigers backed up by endless elite armor grens, endless repairing while moving/shooting tanks/lvs, endless 88's, endless churchills, endless RCA croms/arty etc). That may account for why terror doctrine seems so powerful. And don't be so quick to dismiss capping buffs. If you're opponent has to keep shifting units from the front line to deal with backcappers it presents you with great opportunities to hit exposed areas. Teamwork ftw. So hold out for that to be implemented and when they start tweaking weapon cache values you'll see a whole new arena for balance possibilities.

There's a time for doom and gloom, and I don't think this is it. 

[AmPM]

While true, a T3 that only changes the smoke color, especially when you can count how many offmaps your opponent has used during a game, is really weak.

AB has some nice things, and then it has abilities that obviously had too much thought put into them. Too much thought, that's right. As in, hey, this looks neat, you could do this and this and force the enemy to think it's arty so you can land safely and make them move! Yea, doesn't actually work that way, since you know, AB cast shadows, there is a plane noise, and the guys on the ground shoot at them...

[PonySlaystation]

[EliteGren]

That's still seriously suck. Some serious changes to the T4s have to be made

[smurfORnot]

ab rifleman get extra man,not sure about normal ab too...would be fun :p

[PonySlaystation]

That's still seriously suck. Some serious changes to the T4s have to be made

You mean they are not strong enough? Keep in mind that what tank said is somewhat relevant for the T4s. You don't know how strong they will be until you have played some with them.

[tank130]

You mean they are not strong enough? Keep in mind that what tank said is somewhat relevant for the T4s. You don't know how strong they will be until you have played some with them.

You posted a draft and 50 seconds later someone posted that it sucks.

Good luck with your draft and I hope you are able to create something that everyone agrees with. Try not to become discouraged when people tell you it sucks.

[PonySlaystation]

You posted a draft and 50 seconds later someone posted that it sucks.

What's your point exactly? I know that there will always be people who dislike it, you made that very clear.

[tank130]

What's your point exactly? I know that there will always be people who dislike it, you made that very clear.

My point is: You ignored what I and others have said in regards to being patient and went ahead and posted another draft picture. You have just confirmed that not matter what you or the Dev team do, there will be unhappy people.

In the meantime, let's play with the abilities and give them a good testing before passing judgment and creating a new draft.

[PonySlaystation]

My point is: You ignored what I and others have said in regards to being patient.

No, nobody said that. I can agree that you shouldn't judge before you have actually seen how it works in game. But this is somewhat different. Let's say a T4 has 1% extra damage for my infantry. I know how much 1% is, would I really have to go in game to find out that's not really going to affect my infantry much? The airborne doctrine have many very obvious flaws, the abilities are innovative but they're not useful or balanced.

Perhaps they dedicated too much time thinking about new things to add rather than coming up with a decent doctrine. It just comes to show that I was able to make a much better draft in just five minutes.

[EliteGren]

The draft itself is not 'better', the power of the doctrine is just 'better'. But I still think even with these additions it's still a seriously weak doctrine, perhaps the changes you did are not the best solution or need to be made more significant. There are almost NO direct stat buffs for airborne, honestly wtf is that?