On Fixing PE, with a shoutout to OMG/VCOH 2.301

[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

[jackmccrack]

I agree with Icelandic.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

I agree with Icelandic.

Too bad you are the only one that does.

This isint the first time i have said this and yet every time it gets shot down because people insist that its everything else thats wrong with PE.

[hans]

congrats ice +1.

do we have an answer to this from the balance lead?

PS: very interesting discussion here +2

[Smokaz]

I'm glad you guys are having fun discussing RGD changes that they don't wanna make a patch for

[tank130]

Too bad you are the only one that does.

This isint the first time i have said this and yet every time it gets shot down because people insist that its everything else thats wrong with PE.

Actually Ice, because you posted in a coherent manner with some good points, I personally started a new thread in the balance team to get a discussion going.

I am not saying I agree or disagree: and I certainly do not have a say in the BT, I just put it up because I thought you presented well.

congrats ice +1.

do we have an answer to this from the balance lead? i guess no

PS: very interesting discussion here +2

This weekend is a holiday in Canada. PQ is from Canada, so do not expect a reply from the Balance lead until after the weekend.

I'm glad you guys are having fun discussing RGD changes that they don't wanna make a patch for

It is insulting, sarcastic remarks like this that has made the Dev team pretty much ignore everything you post. Even if you had a good point to make, we ignore your posts due to your shit attitude TBH.

If you do not have anything of value to add to the topic, then please remove yourself from the conversation. Many people here would like to be heard - we do not need to cloud that with garbage.


We have 3 new RGD coders who are very eager to get some stuff done for the next patch. As soon as the BT passes things forward, they will be coded. - Doctrines will be much longer due to training.

[RikiRude]

I played 2 games with a PE account recently, but one glaring thing I noticed that ice mentions in passing is no healing.

Good lord, I felt SO gimped playing as axis with no healing, it just doesn't feel right.

Think about this, us has access to healing at T2 which can heal allies, with first aid at T1 with access to rangers. AB has T3 healing which can heal allies, and lets be honest armor doesnt need any kind of healing because at the end of the day, it's just rifles.

CW have access to healing w/o doctrine abilities AND have a doctrine T3 that any RE player would be a fool to not have that makes it a triage. And with all this, unless both players are armor, there's a pretty good chance allies will have some form of healing.


Now we go to WM, all their infantry have healing available, terror has ambulance, but that only heals you. the only healing that can heal allies is defensive T3. And PG they have health crates, another T3, and I'm not sure which tier scout car healing is.

So healing for axis? very rare, but it doesn't matter to WM, they have the best healing option available. but man, PE just gets FUCKED on healing. but in vcoh they had the best options for healing! they had an ability that made any FO and their base heal, and with group zeal you got healing on the move, PLUS they got health regen with defensive vet.


Now, all that has been stripped away.


Although I barely play them so my opinion has no weight, here are some ideas i have, modify them to your own liking:

give them a group zeal that stops at 8 men. this means it's pointless to blob 3-4 squads together, just blob your guys in pairs. or if you have 3 squads with only 2 guys left you keep them together.

give PE access to something that's similar to forward outpost, every other faction kept it's form of healing except for PE. this also gives them the option of making one close to the lines, or close to spawn. the question is, do you make the FOs something that you capture? i think not because buildings are easy enough to destroy so it's not really necessary.

give a T1 doctrine bonus in each doctrine that buffs PG, like one that makes their group zeal just a little better or ones that give them decreased incomming accuracy, or damage, or faster cool down.

[hans]

(...)

This weekend is a holiday in Canada. PQ is from Canada, so do not expect a reply from the Balance lead until after the weekend.

(...)

Thx for info ^^

too much to quote ^^

i agree half on that.

1. Luftwaffe has medkits for everyone

2. Tankhunters can use doc tier2 i guess for healing all units in a building

3. SE has a heal scoutcar

Although we have that, i would like to give pgrens medics if we already gave them gren health

[taco355]

The healing in a building is 1.xx per minute. It's not that big a deal.

[TheVolskinator]

The healrate of most officers is 0.035 a minute. It is a bit of a deal.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

correct me if i am wrong because RGD thingy wont open but its 13.44 HP per man a minute, tough that was drafted when Pgrens had the Vcoh health which ment it would depend ofcourse how much health per man would have before but lets just say its about 1-10 HP, that ment  healing a sqaud to full took only about 3-4 minutes if you kept them in the houses but after the change it turned it into 5-6 minutes, making that T2 healing quite lackluster if it werent for the Acc buff they grant by being close to houses.

[CrazyWR]

I would just like to see this publicly discussed to keep the ideas flowing.

I'm glad to see a nice long discussion taking place.  Hopefully this will lead to some sort of resolution on a matter that has been an issue for some time now. 

[Unkn0wn]

But here is where it relates to doctrines, you see...

More fuel > Makes armoured doctrines stronger by virtue of them having stronger tanks at same costs
Less Fuel > As armoured doctrines get weaker, inf ones get consequently stronger due to stronger inf at same costs
Less Elite Infantry > Doctrines buffing basic infantry get an advantage, due to basic inf being allowed the same quantities as before with less counters around

Result? Infantry companies get a larger amount of buffs per unit than armoured and elite ones, and this is how doctrine balance gets swung. Hence why I believe some extreme care has to be taken doing this.

Who says a slight nerf to armoured doctrines is necessarily a bad thing? I mean, one could argue that we are already in a situation of an over-abundance of F, in which armor focussed doctrines already hold a significant advantage over infantry ones. If you compare todays starting resources with those of the old EIR or OMG's (which are essentially the same as EIRs) then one could easily argue that we do in fact have an over-abundance of F available to players. (The F to MP ratio is almost 1/6)

In addition, less F doesn't necessarily mean tanks will have a harder time. As less tanks get fielded, players will also scale down the amount of AT they bring, and focus more on AI weaponry instead. I.e the relative potency of a single tank will remain about the same. This means that it's even arguable to interpret a F decrease necessarily as a nerf to armoured doctrines. Less F and same MP however WOULD mean you would see even more infantry upgrades or HMGs and Mortars, since there'd be less MUN going to AT. Either increases wouldn't really be desirable since EIR already has primarily upgraded infantry fighting upgraded infantry and with the low MP (and thus infantry) values more HMGs and Mortars would probably turn gameplay into even bigger stalemates.

What I'm saying is, I guess, is that it would probably be more sensible to increase MP, while keeping F levels the same, or slightly lowering them. Depending on the outcome you want to achieve. Do we actually want less tanks? Do we want a higher inf to tank ratio? Do we want less tanks AND more infantry? Etc. Personally I'm of the opinion EIR gameplay has always revolved way too much about AT. And no one likes fighting walls of ATGs. It's just not good gameplay. (Though one also wouldn't want to fight walls of HMGs, or huge infantry blobs. It's not easy to strike the right balance)

[chefarzt]

I prefer that long discussions that lead to no resolution.

[nikomas]

Thing is, tanks themselves will not have a harder time, but there will still be the same amount of AT ratio as there was before after players adjust to the new amounts of armour fielded. However, doctrines buffing armour inherently get weaker due to buffing a lesser amount of units, compared to a doctrine buffing the now more plentiful basic infantry. Essentially, in the new market conditions Inf doc stock goes up and Armour doc stock goes down.

Have you seen an dual t3 (Oversupplied/Allied grit) infantry coy? I'm not talking to the rape one using rangers but one using just bar and greasegun rifles in unison? Anything that puts less armour and elite infantry on the field makes a coy like that stronger as no basic infantry without heavy buffs can really stand up to buffed triple bar/6 grease rifles, and I would argue already the most powerful allied doctrine in the game.

A case like above is balanced out due to the presence of armour, if there is less armour to counter above it consequently gets more powerful, and this inf player can now invest even less in AT and get even more upguns for rifles he has aplenty.

I'm not saying it's a wrong direction to go, but I easily see some doctrines losing out more than others by resource changes and I haven't really seen people argue that armour is stronger than infantry coy, at least in the current meta.

[Smokaz]

Make soldier armor a free alternative upgrade associated with buying sprint and make g43s worthwhile vs ranger armor. Seriously, would help a lot. Healing is *possible* with all 3 doctrines, but its usually slow or hassle-heavy for PE. Something to think about as well.

we ignore your posts due to your shit attitude TBH.

Please, you read them with a magnifying glass. No patches give me the blues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWLvm11MAaM

[RikiRude]

I prefer that long discussions that lead to no resolution.

che wins this thread.

[Uglysori]

I am not sure if I agree with Crazy's solution.  PE is already about as glass as you can get.  Are we to revert to armored cars getting 1 shotted by ATGs?  Over 50% of PE vehicles already pretty much die to two ATG shots. On a Scorched Earth Co, the only vehicles that are not concerned by small arms fire are Hummel, Hotchkisses, ISTs, Panthers, and Marders let alone soft or hard AT counters.  How much more glass cannon can you get?  So if that is already at an extreme then to fit Crazy's logic you would have to buff PE damage.  But where?  Does every unit need a damage buff?  


We have a fairly solid list of the complaints for PE in EiRR.  Do damage buffs solve them?

These are the arguments that have been made (whether or not they are true)

Infantry

1.  PE Infantry has survivability issues in the current EIRR environment
- Infantry armor has made PE inf more vulnerable against virtually all weapon upgrades
- Does not have medkits compared to Wehr
- Does not have elite armor options for any of their troops

2. PE Infantry has inadequate DPS output in the current EIRR environment
- Standard weapon upgrades considered poor: G43s suppression inadequate compared to BARS, G43 suppression considered worse than old Slow,  DPS of MP44s/G43s hampered by perceived vulnerability of the panzer gren platform (firepower loss thru attrition)
- Weapon upgrades considered less effective:  G43s vs elite armor,  Inc grenades/AT grenades vs Gren nades/Fausts & Pineapples/Stickies, Shreks (because of perceived vulnerability of platform, lack of support hard AT because of current PE AT asset vulnerability)
-  Lack of dmg buffs - no more zeal, PE Muni HT costs fuel and is in environment that has an overabundance of AT assets effective against PE

3. PE Infantry has less flexibility
- Outside of doctrine unlocks, no infantry squad less than 5 pop cost
- In turn outside of doctrine unlocks, does not have efficient squads to recrew support weapons

Vehicles

1. Vulnerability to AT
- Majority of PE vehicles are too weak to AT: Low health and vulnerability to ATGs, handheld AT and vehicles, prevalence of AT in current Meta, poor armor type for many PE LVs

2. Reliant on self propelled AT assets that cost fuel and have more weaknesses than ATGs at the cost of greater mobility  

- ATGs vulnerable to infantry, flanking vehicles, heavy tanks that can absorb their DPS

- 50mm/Marders vulnerable to infantry, flanking vehicles, atgs, heavy tanks that can absorb their dps, can not be recrewed, lower range than ATGs - mobility advantage hampered by poor pathfinding and inability to fire on the move.

3. ATG creep is extremely effective  

- symptom of vulnerability to AT
- reliance on vehicles for support roles (MG suppression, AT, indirect fire)
- disadvantage of PE infantry vs their allied counterparts
- lack of sniper capability

4. Perceived ineffectiveness of flanking, hit and run attacks

- symptom of vulnerability to AT and munition availability for AT assets/mines
- symptom of map choice and poor pathfinding

5. Limitations of fuel

- symptom of perceived infantry disadvantages
- majority of PE units require fuel

6.  Lack of medium tank (This is an oldie but I decided to include it)


Those are the major complaints I can recall over PE over the last year and half, 2 years.  Which are truly a problems? Were these always problems?  What changed to make these problems?  What can we do to fix these problems?  This should be the way to approach it imo.  Have a list then, theorycraft, sandbox, apply change, observe results.  

Crazy thinks we should up damage.  

Where does that apply on this list of problems? - Infantry damage

Was it always a problem? - No?

What changed to make this a problem? - Greater amount of allied weapon upgrades  - Infantry armor more vulnerable to weapon upgrades - Greater amounts of elite infantry - Change to slow -  higher pop costs for PE infantry

What can we do to fix these problems? Up damage?

[aeroblade56]

i think personally pe needs price decrease?. could just be me, but what i am seeing is alot of the same.

Pe does need some help, but i feel it requires a deffirent mind set, Rarely do i see PE use its most valuable asset and thats speed. puddin does it quite well he gets alot of AC with falls schreks sprint and flank the shit  he harasses any back cappers.

I personally think sprint should be available to all PE infantry aside from lft and mg teams.
But it should have the draw back like fireup of being slower for a duration. I think this would help PE utilize its ability to flank. either that or decrease its price.

You could also add a doctrinal ability to have 4 pgrens like in coh.

As for the survivability of pe units i think something is a skew sure they may DIE to 2 atg shots but it doesnt fall victim to snipers and doesnt fall pray to infantry as easily as a 3 man mortar team. If you let bars close the distance on you HT's your a dumbass and deserve to be shot.

PE does fall victim to atg kreep and or lots of atgs. i think a doctrinal ability like the commando sabotage that allows you to instantly blow up a support weapon would be nice.

I think Pe should have a keep it moving ability for doctrine unlock on certain units like IST.

[NightRain]

i think personally pe needs price decrease?. could just be me, but what i am seeing is alot of the same.

Pe does need some help, but i feel it requires a deffirent mind set, Rarely do i see PE use its most valuable asset and thats speed. puddin does it quite well he gets alot of AC with falls schreks sprint and flank the shit  he harasses any back cappers.

I personally think sprint should be available to all PE infantry aside from lft and mg teams.
But it should have the draw back like fireup of being slower for a duration. I think this would help PE utilize its ability to flank. either that or decrease its price.

You could also add a doctrinal ability to have 4 pgrens like in coh.

As for the survivability of pe units i think something is a skew sure they may DIE to 2 atg shots but it doesnt fall victim to snipers and doesnt fall pray to infantry as easily as a 3 man mortar team. If you let bars close the distance on you HT's your a dumbass and deserve to be shot.

PE does fall victim to atg kreep and or lots of atgs. i think a doctrinal ability like the commando sabotage that allows you to instantly blow up a support weapon would be nice.

I think Pe should have a keep it moving ability for doctrine unlock on certain units like IST.

Decrease PE unit costs and you will be cockblocked by pool very quickly.

Nerfing sprint would nerf PE infantry even further and make them feel very weak, but the idea of Vet sergeant adding fifth member is still ideal in a sense. More firepower and ability to crew 2 weapons instead of 1.

The modifier 57mms and similars to prevent ATGs from 2 shooting over half of PE vehicles would be appropriate. It would add survivability. Also the idea of improving every single halftrack armor is also appropriate so that small arms fire wont tear PE vehicles to pieces at least immediately.

[Uglysori]

i think personally pe needs price decrease?. could just be me, but what i am seeing is alot of the same.

Pe does need some help, but i feel it requires a deffirent mind set, Rarely do i see PE use its most valuable asset and thats speed. puddin does it quite well he gets alot of AC with falls schreks sprint and flank the shit  he harasses any back cappers.

I personally think sprint should be available to all PE infantry aside from lft and mg teams.
But it should have the draw back like fireup of being slower for a duration. I think this would help PE utilize its ability to flank. either that or decrease its price.

You could also add a doctrinal ability to have 4 pgrens like in coh.

As for the survivability of pe units i think something is a skew sure they may DIE to 2 atg shots but it doesnt fall victim to snipers and doesnt fall pray to infantry as easily as a 3 man mortar team. If you let bars close the distance on you HT's your a dumbass and deserve to be shot.

PE does fall victim to atg kreep and or lots of atgs. i think a doctrinal ability like the commando sabotage that allows you to instantly blow up a support weapon would be nice.

I think Pe should have a keep it moving ability for doctrine unlock on certain units like IST.

Err firstly, almost all PE infantry already has access to sprint, it just costs a fairly large chunk of manpower to bother to equip infantry with it. 

On the question of speed.  The complaint has been that the abundance of AT and surplus of munitions to buy AT/mines, coupled with map dependence means that you can't necessarily be speedy and flank with PE 100% of the time.  Think Chateau as compared to Neuville.  Carenatan vs Schindjel.  Hit and Run doesn't tend to happen.  It can often turn into Hit and Die.

In terms of 50mm and Marders be invulnerable to snipers.  True yet ironically PE doesn't have snipers to attack your support weapons so that is one less counter you would need to worry about.  They also have the speed to run away from BARs, unless they have a pathing fail, get engine damaged because half their life was already lost to 1 ATG shot and BARs do stupid dmg to HTs, or really the objective was to make them displace from the get go since PE can lack the support weapons to stop a simple rifle push.