Brit Global PP

[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

[TheWindCriesMary]

Something is seriously wrong with Brit PP at the moment.

In the past few hours it has gone up 12.

It just went up 2 in the last 50 minutes.

I thought it was supposed to take 100 doctrine points to go up by 1?

[EIRRMod]

Something is seriously wrong with Brit PP at the moment.

In the past few hours it has gone up 12.

It just went up 2 in the last 50 minutes.

I thought it was supposed to take 100 doctrine points to go up by 1?

It does, but the calculation is split between a ratio of CW - US players (And similarly for PE - WM).
And currently, CW is the least played faction of all, so each of their 'points' spent, could easily be 30-40 towards CW PP, rather than the base 10.

This is so that the 'lesser played' factions still balance up with the others.

[AmPM]

It does, but the calculation is split between a ratio of CW - US players (And similarly for PE - WM).
And currently, CW is the least played faction of all, so each of their 'points' spent, could easily be 30-40 towards CW PP, rather than the base 10.

This is so that the 'lesser played' factions still balance up with the others.

How does that work when they have more than the more played Axis?

[TheWindCriesMary]

This is so that the 'lesser played' factions still balance up with the others.

I think in theory the idea makes sense but the modifier may need to be adjusted because right now brits are storming ahead and swimming in PP.

It also arguably gives individual brit players like myself way more influence over the warmap than the average PE/WM player if my victories are being multiplied in their impact.

[EIRRMod]

The modifier changes the more games you will play as CW.

So, atm, theres a 1:3 ratio between US to CW.  Which, makes CW 10 * 3, while making US 10 * 1/3 per point put into doctrine.

As the numbers get closer to a 1:1 ratio, the number returns closer to 10 for each faction.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Well I just won another game and it went up another 2 pp.

So my last two games in which no other brit player won a game, Brits went up 2 pp each time.

Seems a bit too fast tbh, especially considering brits now have over 2x the PP of PE

[EIRRMod]

For an overwhelming victory, 6 doctrine points, x 30, is around 180 points (given fractions) - which, as you say is ~2PP.

That number reflects the number of CW PLAYERS there are, which there isnt many.

Mathematically, it all works out.  The more CW players play, the closer to 10 it ends up.  It just so happens that no-one has been playing CW, so the ratio is well out of whack.

The more pressing issue I am seeing, is why the F**k are the Axis sides sucking so badly?

[AmPM]

Badly balanced doctrinal tiers.

[PonySlaystation]

What ampm said.

[EliteGren]

Funny, it used to be the allied early war that sucked dicks

[NightRain]

When majority of axis players are nubcakes and most allied players are higher caliber I don't see any reason why Allies are gaining the early upperhand.

[hans]

so if basically a few allies fighting a great amout of different axis players, the allied PP move faster if allies win right?

[EIRRMod]

so if basically a few allies fighting a great amout of different axis players, the allied PP move faster if allies win right?

How about you think about that question for a little bit?

There are no 1v3 games out there.  Every match is a 1:1 ratio with the opposing faction.

So, with that answered, the ratio is same-side only.  Not Allies vs Axis.

[hans]

How about you think about that question for a little bit?

There are no 1v3 games out there.  Every match is a 1:1 ratio with the opposing faction.

So, with that answered, the ratio is same-side only.  Not Allies vs Axis.

oh okay thx 

[Spartan_Marine88]

Badly balanced doctrinal tiers.

I have won most my Brit games without any doctrines.

[XIIcorps]

I have won most my Brit games without any doctrines.

Cromwells are badass when they don't have to fave double shrecks

[Groundfire]

You can also consider the high inclination to purchase direct result unlocks before passive unlocks.

Most people will take their first unit unlock, an offmap, another unit unlock for healing, new weapons unlock like double schrecks, weapons crates, etc and you are a full 125-150 PPs into your doctrine BEFORE you start unlocking the passive top 3x4 trees.

Badly balanced doctrines dont really have anything to do with it IMO.

[XIIcorps]

Exactly
Players have just gotten lazy ans used to playing with unlimited pps and unlocks for 9 months.

[hans]

You can also consider the high inclination to purchase direct result unlocks before passive unlocks.

Most people will take their first unit unlock, an offmap, another unit unlock for healing, new weapons unlock like double schrecks, weapons crates, etc and you are a full 125-150 PPs into your doctrine BEFORE you start unlocking the passive top 3x4 trees.

Badly balanced doctrines dont really have anything to do with it IMO.

so true. first unlocks units, then doctrine. Its not the fault of the doctrines.

[PonySlaystation]

Airborne essentially get T3 buffs as T2, so yes it does matter, because you can afford T2 unlocks. Also Creeping barrage is an unlock while Hummel incendiary is a T4, it's very inconsistent for two similar artillery barrages.