An example of EIRR doing things right, agree or disagree?

[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

[Smokaz]

Look at Luft bottom T4.

The buff is tied to UPGRADES, so you have to buy these for doc bonuses to take affect. (Sprint, Overdrive.) They are also more expensive on better units and free on some others? Imagine also being able to buy overdrive on stuff like: wirbel, 50mm, scout car, mortar ht and vampire ht. (vehicles as noted by the buff)

Price of the sprint upgrade varies between 60 and 40. This is kinda expensive to begin with for just the sprint imo, but clearly more than fair for the passive sprint.

Now if sprint perhaps was cut down to 50 (FSJ)- 25  and then when you got the T4, increased in price, 70 - 50 you would possibly have the upgrade/unit balanced for both the doctrine buff and without it.

Who honestly dont think EIRR would be more enjoyable if doctrine buffs were upgrades you paid for on your units? Let's say that T3 to T4 would have purchasable upgrades, and T1-T2s would not.

[AmPM]

Why would you buy things that make your company equally as powerful as if you didn't have them?

Just get passive buffs and offmaps, and trololol.

[Smokaz]

Explain to me how it's equally powerful to have much more survivability (say, fatherland defense) utility (Fast Response) or dps (Fantacism) for population than not having these for the same population. I really think you can't, you've been trolling this proposal with the same comment every time, but the criticism lacks merit. Historic example: Double weapons for wehr being removed by EIRRMOD cause he didnt like people stacking their opening callins, now how can you think being able to make stronger populations of units is equally strong to weaker populations of units based on that? I mean are people unlocking stuff that makes their units stronger for pop for no reason?

If your take on this were right, you'd see people respect diminishing returns a lot more. Why get another 2 squads of elite armor grens with grenades if 2 mg42 or a 81mm (that the guy doesn't get a doctrine buff for ) would be more helpful to add on top of your already 16 elite armor grens? There are better examples of diminishing returns but the point still stands, and people tend to maximize the amount of doctrine-affected units in their company.

Adding costs to the significant doctrine buffs is TRUE specialization and choice because you are giving up resources for A so you become better at A possibly at the detriment of your B and C capabilities, while currently A (doctrine affected unit) is just straight up improved in value.

Also this would allow you to CONTROL buffs for your company. You might not want to upgrade some of those elite armor grens so you could have grens with infantry armor as well as elite.

There's a clear imbalance between having a calliope that shoots and moves at 12 pop and a 88 that arties and shoots at 8 pop, and their vanilla versions and price needs to reflect how much better this unit is on the field.

[Mister Schmidt]

So, are you proposing that the units without buffs should be cheaper, and with buffs at the current price, or with the buffs more expensive and standard units at current price?

[Smokaz]

I propose that the T3s and T4s should have a cost with them that reflects the unit that is being upgraded and the upgrade itself

[Audemed]

That would only work if the buffs were made more powerful. As it stands, most doctrine buffs are relatively insignificant, bar a few such as battle hardened or HVAP.

[aeroblade56]

HVAP is nice. i enjoy it on m10s, currently though i kinda gave up on HVAP due to them taking 1 pack shot or 1 panther shot and losing 45% of its effectiveness.

[Nug]

There should be consistency.  Either you have to pay for them in all doctrines or non at all, it's better for balance.

[EIRRMod]

I propose that the T3s and T4s should have a cost with them that reflects the unit that is being upgraded and the upgrade itself

I think you have spies everywhere Smokaz.

FOR THE LAST TIME!
STAY OUT OF THE BATCAVE!

[tank130]

Jesus Christ!!!!

I actually went and checked your permissions to see if you had Dev lobby access.....LOL


Better, stronger doctrine buffs with an associated cost is exactly what we are working towards.

Balancing all Doctrine buffs equally across all factions with out a form of currency is not working well currently. This system requires each doctrine to be balanced against each other PERFECTLY.

For example, a buff that buffs 'All riflemen' and also, for example, a same tiered WM unlock which buffs 'All volksgrenadiers' would require it to be balanced against EACH OTHER *AND* the doctrine it resides in.
No easy task, but doable, but will never be perfect. It gets further complicated when we try to balance all tiers across 4 factions.


Doctrines with passive and upgradable costs for unlocks:

This system requires that the costs for each unlock / upgrade be balanced against similar types depending on its PLATFORM, rather than other doctrines unlocks that are similar or the doctrine unlocks of other doctrines.
This will allow each doctrine to be 'as powerful' as the other doctrines, or more / less powerful - which would happen depending on the players builds.  However, it has the additional benefit of having a quantifiable cost to an unlock, which would allow for balance of the variable type unlocks.

Using the example above, the variable cost of benefit (of how many riflemen) now scales in COST (resources) depending on how many riflemen are chosen.  This now allows us to balance across one unit AS WELL as across doctrines - because they all have the same constraints.  Bear in mind, the benefit / cost would need to be 'cheap' in regards to the relative bonus given;

Example:

Riflemen +15% damage = 15MU per riflemen. (1 MU per 1% per volks for damage)
Volkgrens +15% damage = 10MU per volks (2/3 MU per 1% for volks for damage)
If that equates to too much MU cost per percent - we can easily perform a UNIT WIDE reduction (for example reduce by 50% - 1/2 MU per % for rifles, or 1/3 MU per 1% for volks)

This system also allows for creativity of better (stronger) doctrines without the negative effect of OP.  In the same way we balance unit’s strengths with cost, we can balance doctrine strengths with cost.

[Hicks58]

I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to go through every doctrine associating some form of proportional cost to the abilities while maintaining balance.

[aeroblade56]

dudebro balance lead 2012.

[tank130]

I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to go through every doctrine associating some form of proportional cost to the abilities while maintaining balance.

Actually, the job of doing that just became 10 times easier by implementing costs. We were going to pass the doctrines to the BT and request that they all be good worth while buffs, balanced across all factions, but with no way to balance them other then just inventing a balanced buff.

The doctrines have been out for about 2 years now and have never been balanced across all 4 factions. Some of the abilities completely suck or have been nerfed into uselessness. Now we can boost them back up or create even better ones, but not be limited by no balance currency.

Not every buff requires a cost. It only requires a cost if the buff is too effective for free. Nerfing the buff to be balanced "free" usually results in it being useless.

[Smokaz]

I'm glad to continue to be unsurprised that I am your loss you asscave mongering bastards

But ill never be a yes-man

glad to know that this is being thought about

Smokaz - pushing EIR around since 2009, not even honored member

[aeroblade56]

88s UP needs more buffs.

[EIRRMod]

I'm glad to continue to be unsurprised that I am your loss you asscave mongering bastards

But ill never be a yes-man

glad to know that this is being thought about

Huh.  I have no idea what you said.

Smokaz - pushing EIR around since 2009, not even honored member

You need a badge for that sheriff!