eirr is dying

[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

[EliteGren]

A new player shouldn't ever stand a chance against a top player anyway. Why should he? There's a reason relic put in automatch to match new guys against new guys and not against top players. Since automatch is lacking in EIR they make the conscious decision to play against top players and they will have to face the consequences if they wanna do so. Most top players like the free vet anyway

[AmPM]

I like some of the ideas coming out of here. HOw would you guys handle new players joining the community? If EiR:R has proven anything, it is that it will not survive with a small elitist type community. We lost hundreds of new players due to massive stomps, accessibility, and prior to the warmap, a massive distance between new players and seasoned players.

My concern is, if the top players have all these massive buffs that AMPM has suggested, how does any new player even stand a remote chance in hell of playing? I would really like to see some input from you guys on how to handle that.

 Doctrines suck in EiR:R because they are free. It's that simple. You can't give away powerful abilities for free - it would just be stupid. That is something that has already been changed in EiR2. All doctrine abilities will have a resource cost. This way they can be more creative and more powerful.

We are also eliminating doctrine trees. There will no longer be predetermined tiers. You will be able to mix and match all you want. Some abilities may only be available to certain doctrines, but that is pretty much a no brainier.

If the costs are balanced then you don't even need doctrine abilities, they will be meaningless. If they are not balanced, some will be more efficient than others and be the only ones used. Making them cost something is pointless. It's like Repair kit costs on vehicles, yea, it costs something, but 99% of the time it's a no brainer (outside of suicide HT's and such).

How do you handle new players? The same was as any other skill based game, they lose until they get better. Just like any FPS, MOBA, RTS, 4x, etc. If you are new to a game expect to lose, and use that as a learning experience. We all started out EIR losing games, some just learned from their mistakes or devoted more time to practice. Stomps are going to happen no matter what you do, at least more specialized doctrines mean that new players can counter pick. Think of DOTA, LOL, etc. You have heroes that are extreme examples of a specialization, and you have some generalist ones. You pick based on what the other team has chosen so far in order to counter them, or to make your team better. (except for pug games, then it's a madhouse free for all).

Perhaps you could include two game lobbies? One for new players, with lower chance of reward cards, and no chance at high end reward cards, lower veterancy gains, but a lower chance of unit perma death. Then have another for more skilled/brave players that has higher rewards and more risk.

When you make a game focus on taking people that are not as good, and making them as equal to highly skilled players as possible, you may get more new people to start playing, but they won't stick around long. They will get bored that there is no progression, no skill improvement, nothing, and wander off. This is the effect that we see in EIRR right now. New people are playing, but all your skilled players have gone on to other games and the community suffers for it.

A game needs to be challenging enough for it's target audience, fun, and have things to achieve. Whether those are rare reward units, higher tier unlocks, vet, whatever, you have to have things to work towards.

[Smokaz]

In the matchmaking discussion the devs state that a small elitist community bludgeons new players but the underlying problem is that the community is small. If there are 10 players, and the 2 best players are stomping the others it's not that functionally different from the 2 best players stomping the worst 2000 players in a 10.000 players game, the key difference is that when you have 100 players in eirr launcher getting good games isn't so hard because  you have a lot more player combinations to choose from and you're probably still losing vs mixes of the same guys, but it's compensated for by other players losing to you.

[MorkaandBorka]

So basically we just need to have 100 players at a time no?

I mean how amazing would that be?  To see over 100 people in a EIR launcher....would be amazing.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Would be a clusterfuck setting up the game in the game.

[ick312]

One Word to the balance discussion between niko and ampm.

The problem is that balanced companies dont have a chance vs a spam company because 1 "conter unit" to that spam is not strong enough. So an allround company simply runs dry on counters.

So you usually end up spamming op shit vs op shit. The allies are having more to choose but thats basically the problem. Not anymore the good combination of units leads to victory but the spam. Call me crazy but when i joined and long after that, it wasnt like that.

[brn4meplz]

So basically we just need to have 100 players at a time no?

I mean how amazing would that be?  To see over 100 people in a EIR launcher....would be amazing.

I believe that with some of the system we're attempting to implement for EiR2, that will be achieved. My super wet dream for EiR2, is full in-game menu integration. Thats not a likely scenario. but damn would it be epic.

[fldash]

A new player shouldn't ever stand a chance against a top player anyway. Why should he? There's a reason relic put in automatch to match new guys against new guys and not against top players. Since automatch is lacking in EIR they make the conscious decision to play against top players and they will have to face the consequences if they wanna do so. Most top players like the free vet anyway

This is great and good if you have thousands of players like the game does.  A modification is working with a fraction of that many.  There are great points on both sides but having a high barrier to entry is NOT a way to grow a modification.  If a new player plays well and still loses every time because of factors outside their control (like a lack of veterancy and or doctrines) then we have a serious issue.

Perhaps occasionally we just ask the top players in the community to play without Vet/Doctrines against other players and confirm they still feel the game is fair.  If they aren't willing to do that, then why would a new player want to?

[ick312]

This is great and good if you have thousands of players like the game does.  A modification is working with a fraction of that many.  There are great points on both sides but having a high barrier to entry is NOT a way to grow a modification.  If a new player plays well and still loses every time because of factors outside their control (like a lack of veterancy and or doctrines) then we have a serious issue.

Perhaps occasionally we just ask the top players in the community to play without Vet/Doctrines against other players and confirm they still feel the game is fair.  If they aren't willing to do that, then why would a new player want to?

wise words

[Smokaz]

as im sure you are aware of fldash newbie advantages were implemented for a period, but it was tied to  just being a low xp account, not actually being a new player... if there just was a way to buff newbie accounts somewhat without giving incentive to "farm"-like behaviour.. say if there was a % xp advantage for new accounts it would be foiled by just goodplayer13 farming up a horde of vet while losing games.. what kind of system that is not dependant on trust could be used here..

as for community size, i think there's a cognitive bias in play here.. we who played the mod ofc are going to say it was good before or at least was good at one point.. but since it never gained a solid continious presence of player.. maybe it just was so niche/not so good as we like to think ourself. what would a outsider's review of eirr look like.. i doubt it would be too rosy

the best suggestion I  can think of is using the win/lose ratio to make some kind of ratio where if the ratio is good, the game rewards it, and if the ratio is bad, the team with player advantage gain ingame disadvantages/resource nerfs..
 
if eir2 is interested in a lot of players.. there need to be articles about in.. i can't even find a review of eirr outside moddb.. crazy huh ??

[EliteGren]

This is great and good if you have thousands of players like the game does.  A modification is working with a fraction of that many.  There are great points on both sides but having a high barrier to entry is NOT a way to grow a modification.  If a new player plays well and still loses every time because of factors outside their control (like a lack of veterancy and or doctrines) then we have a serious issue.

Perhaps occasionally we just ask the top players in the community to play without Vet/Doctrines against other players and confirm they still feel the game is fair.  If they aren't willing to do that, then why would a new player want to?

While it's true that a new player losing because of a lack of vet and doctrines while playing well is a bad thing, let's imagine the following scenario: Both the new player and the veteran play well. You don't want this to happen, so forcefully the following thing will occur: a player who has vet and doctrines is now losing to a player without vet and doctrines when he also plays well. Am I missing something or does that not seem right either now, does it?

In the end the new player should always lose to someone who is in possession of the aforementioned things, there is just no way he shouldn't lose, ever. The stage where you do not have these things is just one that everyone has to get through, though I do like how the original EIR handled this, by granting a starting amount of CPs to unlock some doctrines right away.

[Smokaz]

anti-stomp system is easy if you give xp gain penalty for stomping .. but it's in my view a more bold move to actually try to get enough players in eir2, then stomping won't be so forced

[fldash]

While it's true that a new player losing because of a lack of vet and doctrines while playing well is a bad thing, let's imagine the following scenario: Both the new player and the veteran play well. You don't want this to happen, so forcefully the following thing will occur: a player who has vet and doctrines is now losing to a player without vet and doctrines when he also plays well. Am I missing something or does that not seem right either now, does it?

In the end the new player should always lose to someone who is in possession of the aforementioned things, there is just no way he shouldn't lose, ever. The stage where you do not have these things is just one that everyone has to get through, though I do like how the original EIR handled this, by granting a starting amount of CPs to unlock some doctrines right away.

If both play well, of course the player with veteran units should win.  However saying that a new player should NEVER beat a veteran company player is inaccurate and quite frankly won't get us anywhere with EIR2.  My particular interest is when a veteran player plays poorly (gross mismanagement, out-thought, etc) and still wins based on the veterancy he accrued then we have an issue. 

All that said, because veterancy is persistent, we have to be careful.  When a player loses, assuming he's careful, he may not lose veteran units.  And when a player wins, he may not have many units left that are salvageable.  I distinctly remember winning games when I first released EIR where I was in a worse position than when I went into battle and it was because I didn't retreat my troops at the first sign of danger, but kept them on the field to utilize their strength as much as possible.

[AmPM]

A lost game is not always a lose though.

You can lose a game and achieve an objective, like getting vet, killing vet, unlocking new things, etc.

I think the best way to match, would be to assign veterancy levels a value, then total that, the value of unlocks, abilities, etc. That total can be used to assign a modifier to a game, the more difference, the more reward for the lower level even if it's a loss. The lower the reward for the higher level. This would also discourage vet whoring just to have it.

The other option would be to do something like this.

Give people doctrine unlocks from the start. You design your company based on a pool of points that can be used to give doctrine abilities, equipment unlocks, pool modifiers. Then vastly improve the way we do veterancy with branching upgrade trees. You have more company development, more attachment, a fairly even starting place for new players while having much more to build towards and a more linear improvement curve for vet. Instead of a huge diffrence between vet 1 and 2 you have smaller improvements purchased along the way. You could remove the level system and just have it display the highest tier of XP upgrade.

Hmm..wonder if you could assign names to units as well.

[fldash]

AmPM, now we are getting somewhere.  Good thoughts.  As for the name, on an individual soldier level it's a little absurd, but possible, however naming a squad/vehicle is certainly possible.

[AmPM]

I meant more as a name for squads/vehicles.

So you could have a Sherman known as Johnson's Ronson or some such.

But yea, I would love to see more individual unit development with the base company already setup and in place. The key is you need to have continual development of a company. Things to add, things to change.

If we could track individual unit kill types (vehicles for instance) you could even include that as a requirement for an ability. Like "Bazooka Experts - 10 Vehicle Kills".

[Unkn0wn]

If the costs are balanced then you don't even need doctrine abilities, they will be meaningless. If they are not balanced, some will be more efficient than others and be the only ones used. Making them cost something is pointless. It's like Repair kit costs on vehicles, yea, it costs something, but 99% of the time it's a no brainer (outside of suicide HT's and such).

That's nonsense to be honest, since there would be a wide variety of unlocks to choose from, all catering to different playstyles, all unlocks could technically have their own merits. It's not going to be like in the current system where you have a large amount of largely unappealing abilities thrown into the doctrines as filler. Imagine it as being essentially the bottom unlock table from the current doctrines but with a lot more to it (not just unit unlocks, weapons and off-maps like currently)

Is there an 'obvious' better choice between tigers, Stuhs and Stormtroopers in the Blitz doctrine? I don't think so. As such there is no reason to assume that it couldn't work on a larger scale.

How do you handle new players? The same was as any other skill based game, they lose until they get better. Just like any FPS, MOBA, RTS, 4x, etc. If you are new to a game expect to lose, and use that as a learning experience. We all started out EIR losing games, some just learned from their mistakes or devoted more time to practice. Stomps are going to happen no matter what you do, at least more specialized doctrines mean that new players can counter pick. Think of DOTA, LOL, etc. You have heroes that are extreme examples of a specialization, and you have some generalist ones. You pick based on what the other team has chosen so far in order to counter them, or to make your team better. (except for pug games, then it's a madhouse free for all).

I think the comparison with any of those games is unfair, MOBA's and most RTS all feature a matchmaking system, while most FPS games are incredibly straightforward (with the exception of some games like NS2 in the FPS/RTS hybrid genre that also suffers playerbase-wise). For matchmaking to work however, you need a large enough playerbase, as has been mentioned here numerous times already.

A game needs to be challenging enough for it's target audience, fun, and have things to achieve. Whether those are rare reward units, higher tier unlocks, vet, whatever, you have to have things to work towards.

There is no reason why player accessibility and experienced player persistency/challenge can't go hand in hand. The new doctrine system we are planning is a good example of that. Veteran players could be unlocking more abilities to choose from, but the overall number of slots they can equip would remain factional. As such there is a grind and meaningful progression (I.e grinding players may get tigers and whatnot before everyone else) but since there is a cost attached to those units just as well, it doesn't in any way break balance. (I.e heavy tank vs no heavy tank companies can still be balanced, T4 vs only T1 companies like in EIR today isn't)

On a more general note, I'd like to add that if we eliminate doctrinal imbalances (without sacrificing progression and variety) we will more than likely address a big part of the issue that is new vs veteran accounts. Combine that with a significant change to retreat modifiers (while still having powerful veterancy) and you have yourself a much more level playing field.

As for availability, I don't think anybody could possibly argue that we can outright do without any sort of spam-control mechanism. Experience has shown that there will always be a bunch of people exploiting the power of certain outlier strategies. The real question is of course how we can keep a maximum of company customization while also preventing certain gimmicks from ruining everybody's fun.

[Bear]

If both play well, of course the player with veteran units should win.  However saying that a new player should NEVER beat a veteran company player is inaccurate and quite frankly won't get us anywhere with EIR2.  My particular interest is when a veteran player plays poorly (gross mismanagement, out-thought, etc) and still wins based on the veterancy he accrued then we have an issue. 

All that said, because veterancy is persistent, we have to be careful.  When a player loses, assuming he's careful, he may not lose veteran units.  And when a player wins, he may not have many units left that are salvageable.  I distinctly remember winning games when I first released EIR where I was in a worse position than when I went into battle and it was because I didn't retreat my troops at the first sign of danger, but kept them on the field to utilize their strength as much as possible.

[tank130]

I think ambitious projects like the warmap should be the goal after the game itself is complete with all doctrines working and a pretty good balance as it otherwise just takes away valuable manpower from the coding department.

This is just wrong - horribly wrong.  A typical misconception that continues to circulate despite several attempts by all members of the Dev team to set the record straight.

The Warmap is 100% coded by EiRRmod - no one else on the team codes it.
EiRR mod does not do any other coding on this mod, including Scar coding. Is he capable of coding Scar & RGD? - Yes, but only if he sat down and took a long time to retrain himself to do it. He is not proficient at it. Removing the warmap would not increase coding in other areas of the mod - at all!! It would just mean eirrmod would be playing more space games waiting for everyone else to get their shit done.

The future Warmap will influence resources, doctrine & card slot unlocks, game modes, and hopefully maps. To leave it to the last would be eliminating 90% of the mods mechanics.

As well as the fact that we could give every company a specific name which other players would see in launcher.

You can do that now.

And of course, there were some balls out rockin' doctrines, and as unbalanced as they were, the players loved them and it ended up being a very guilty pleasure for everyone and are one of the things most people who were around in those days dream about when they are confronted with the rather bland and restrictive doctrines of post 2008 and partly the 2009 iteration of EIRR.

So you admit that having broken doctrines and massive imbalance is what you prefer? Hard to take you seriously with comments like that.



Repairs will not be coming back as you have seen them in EiR:R. We are working on a different system.

[EliteGren]

This is just wrong - horribly wrong.  A typical misconception that continues to circulate despite several attempts by all members of the Dev team to set the record straight.

The Warmap is 100% coded by EiRRmod - no one else on the team codes it.
EiRR mod does not do any other coding on this mod, including Scar coding. Is he capable of coding Scar & RGD? - Yes, but only if he sat down and took a long time to retrain himself to do it. He is not proficient at it. Removing the warmap would not increase coding in other areas of the mod - at all!! It would just mean eirrmod would be playing more space games waiting for everyone else to get their shit done.

The future Warmap will influence resources, doctrine & card slot unlocks, game modes, and hopefully maps. To leave it to the last would be eliminating 90% of the mods mechanics.

You can do that now.

So you admit that having broken doctrines and massive imbalance is what you prefer? Hard to take you seriously with comments like that.



Repairs will not be coming back as you have seen them in EiR:R. We are working on a different system.

Okay then, I didn't know EIRRMod doesn't want to help in the RGD department to get patches done faster. Please tell me how to assign names to the armies of my seperate companies on my profile, I am impressed how this mechanic managed to stay undiscovered by me for so long and not used by anyone else. Must have just escaped everyone

I'm not admiting anything, I am saying that the subjective "broken" doctrines that caused massive imbalances are not what I prefer, but what a significant part of the eir community enjoyed to no end.