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

[nikomas]

It's almost like you can name your companies other things than your profile name, it's almost like steam lets you name yourself Iosif Stalin if you so desired and thus I'm quite sure sure setting it to the 101stILikeToComplainDivision would not pose a problem, guess what? Last time I checked you can name your coy that in EiRR to.

[Bear]

I would play as allied if I would have my armour coy with maingun calliope like many times last year.
Now we sitting there all day and one allied player is missing everytime,
and all the allied player want be play as axis now!??
For me it seams allied be op without axis rw units and axis be op with axis rw units...
Here was writing much clever sentence but I search a practicable solution...
And my units must fighting everytime they could not grow to be vet units.....
Please search a solution for save the best strategy game ever, the counter-strike of coh....
why could not using the unit the same value?
inf=terror, armour=blitz, etc.
In real should be the axis units better because they was fighting many years in russian before and the allied units be more but that seems not praticable for a game...

[EliteGren]

Nikomas, you were not around long enough to know what mechanic I'm talking about. It seems like tank misunderstood it too. On every company you could make 3 seperare companies with individual names but the same doctrine choices

[nikomas]

Alright, so you're saying you need three different names and that's a huge issue? Why can't you just name your companies differently, you've got 12 slots. You seriously need more than 12 divisional titles, seriously? It could be a nice little feature down the line, maybe, but I really don't see how it's worth making a deal out of when you can still do the basically same thing.

[EliteGren]

Alright, so you're saying you need three different names and that's a huge issue? Why can't you just name your companies differently, you've got 12 slots.

ILikeToComplainDivision indeed.

Okay one more time for the slow ones. Not the profile nicks you are playing on, but names for the companies themselves. The army you built, for gods sakes.

[tank130]

Okay then, I didn't know EIRRMod doesn't want to help in the RGD department to get patches done faster.

Another massive misconception. Delays in patching are not caused by the RGD coders since the departure of Leophone. Leophone intentionally withheld work as a way of trying to force the mod to do what he wanted.
The last big patch was delayed 100% by fault of eirrmod and his work on the warmap. He made the mistake of tying his work to the RGD patching, resulting in us being unable to patch until he finished his warmap work. This has since been corrected and will not be an issue in future.

Eirrmod would have to sit down and figure out RGD coding all over again. Something he would really rather not do and will most likely not do. It does not appeal to him, so we can't force it. He would be even less productive as a RGD coder then he is as a Warmap coder 





 

Please tell me how to assign names to the armies of my seperate companies on my profile.

I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to achieve. I can currently call my blitz company "elitegreniscool" or I can call my second Blitz company "elitegrenisnotcool".

Are you wanting to call individual companies a name? Like every rifle squad has a different name? Please clarify.

[nikomas]

As for "3 companies" sorry but you're not making much sense, you do know what a company of troops is right? Somehow I doubt you had three companies in your... company. You don't really have an army either. If you want me to understand whatever the hell you're saying then at least get your terms right before you go calling people "slow".

If you're saying you could rename whatever force you had at the moment on the fly? Well, you're not making that very clear but it's the best bet I got right now.

[tank130]

Okay one more time for the slow ones. Not the profile nicks you are playing on, but names for the companies themselves. The army you built, for gods sakes.

EG, I am not slow...... but your previous description was not very clear, This seems a little more clear but so insanely useless, that I did not give it much thought.

Are you implying that you want 3 builds with the exact same units, with the exact same doctrine unlocks, but with 3 different names? WTF would be the point of that?

[EliteGren]

Fair enough then tank, I did not know that. The company thing might be a little confusing right now because the profile nicks you choose for your seperate battalions are now called "companies" themselves.

For every battalion you had on your account you could make 3 different armies, or "companies" as they were called back then, which had the same amount of resources available to them but you could keep the doctrine choices you made, allowing you to join games with that same account but being able to choose between the 3 set builds while sitting in the game, and these had different names (e.g. offensive, defending, ilikewaffles)

Did not realise how confusing this actually is now because of the name change to company from battalion, my bad

[nikomas]

Alright, now you're making more sense, gotcha. Yeah, if you have three company groups they would form a battalion, you had me a bit confused there

[Unkn0wn]

The custom name that came with selecting a T4 was a very nice touch, it also added a sense of trandsparancy as you would know what you were fighting against. Both those custom company names and the little war updates (where they would say things like Tank130's 120th Airbourne division crushed Unkn0wn's 5th Panzer division in a fierce battle on mapname, blablabla) were very nice extras that I personally would love to have back as well.

I.e for every company/division/whateveryouwanttocallit you could pick a number, you would then be for example be the commander of the faction's only 101st Airbourne division, etc. (Obviously the famous division numbers were claimed first) It's a small addition but it's a very nice immersion touch.

[Ahnungsloser]

It would be possible to prevent spamming single units with a bit of extra work.
Since EIR2 is in the creation phase it may be a good to implement a extra mechanic beside of pool values and resources.

In EIR1 the first two methods to prevent monotone builds are:
a) Unable to field enough units of a certain type due to pool value restrictions
b) The hardcapping of a special unit like the pershing or reward units

And now I would like to explain with a example how I would (try) to implement a spam prevention mechanic:
The initial condition to make that system work is to estimate how much units of a specific type (for example a 57mm ATG) a balanced
company would field in average (Let us assume it's for pieces in a normal build).  So for my example, four would be the average value and for example six could be, let's call it "maximum value".

But here comes the trick: What happens when I want to have 7 ATG's?
Compared to a hardcapping limit, you have still access to >6 ATG's but now the costs start to increase with every extra piece. It could be a slight static increase like +20% or a more complex/incremental increase.


In short: This systems creates a counterpole to a cost effective unit composition with making it less effective when you try to "spam" it.
"Stacking Penalty" could be a good discription for this mechanic. Overview:


Advantages:
+ Once it's set up you can adjust this system to a metagame shift or a balance patch
+ Players who wants to have special company builds have still acces to it - but they gonna pay for it

Disadvantages:
- It might not work and fail hard or restrict player to much in their company build freedom
- Every unit needs it own specific restriction (but maybe not all unit need them)
- Extra work and maintainence necessary to keep it in a good shape

[AmPM]

EG, I am not slow...... but your previous description was not very clear, This seems a little more clear but so insanely useless, that I did not give it much thought.

Are you implying that you want 3 builds with the exact same units, with the exact same doctrine unlocks, but with 3 different names? WTF would be the point of that?

Actually, what we used to have was 3 Companies with the same unlocks, but with different troops. So you could have one configured for Defense, one for Attack, and a reserve. The enemy didn't know which you were using and you could change it around based on the game type.

[AmPM]

It would be possible to prevent spamming single units with a bit of extra work.
Since EIR2 is in the creation phase it may be a good to implement a extra mechanic beside of pool values and resources.

In EIR1 the first two methods to prevent monotone builds are:
a) Unable to field enough units of a certain type due to pool value restrictions
b) The hardcapping of a special unit like the pershing or reward units

And now I would like to explain with a example how I would (try) to implement a spam prevention mechanic:
The initial condition to make that system work is to estimate how much units of a specific type (for example a 57mm ATG) a balanced
company would field in average (Let us assume it's for pieces in a normal build).  So for my example, four would be the average value and for example six could be, let's call it "maximum value".

But here comes the trick: What happens when I want to have 7 ATG's?
Compared to a hardcapping limit, you have still access to >6 ATG's but now the costs start to increase with every extra piece. It could be a slight static increase like +20% or a more complex/incremental increase.


In short: This systems creates a counterpole to a cost effective unit composition with making it less effective when you try to "spam" it.
"Stacking Penalty" could be a good discription for this mechanic. Overview:


Advantages:
+ Once it's set up you can adjust this system to a metagame shift or a balance patch
+ Players who wants to have special company builds have still acces to it - but they gonna pay for it

Disadvantages:
- It might not work and fail hard
- Every unit needs it own specific restriction (but maybe not all unit need them)
- Extra work and maintainence necessary to keep it in a good shape

But, because doctrine abilities are based around buffing specific unit types, you would actually not be able to take full advantage of them. Best idea. Learn that balance is not on a per game level. If you run into your counter too bad. That's what you get for specializing.

Right now the issues are with things that don't have enough counters, or their counters lead to fighting mirror companies.

The best way to handle it is varying game types and objectives. Tons of support weapons are fine, until you need to take points quickly.

The big issue units can all be neutered through small changes. For instance, Flame Engies could be 6 man/pop Pio/Eng squads with 1 Flamer that also costs more MP. Prevents tons of them being on field at once and preserves their role.

[nikomas]

The big issue units can all be neutered through small changes. For instance, Flame Engies could be 6 man/pop Pio/Eng squads with 1 Flamer that also costs more MP. Prevents tons of them being on field at once and preserves their role.

I was partway trough explaining what a horrible idea what you just said would be but realized I could not say it without soundings like a berserk viking out for blood! Luckily, this is the general forums so this guy will do it for me...

tankedit: (I am too fucking stupid to use words) pic removed

[Smokaz]

the way attack def works now it might as well be random i feel. i hope eirr 2 brings back global attack defend.

[AmPM]

I was partway trough explaining what a horrible idea what you just said would be but realized I could not say it without soundings like a berserk viking out for blood! Luckily, this is the general forums so this guy will do it for me...

tankedit: (I am too fucking stupid to use words) pic removed

Why, other than limiting you to 1-2 squads at a time, would it be bad? Oh noes! No more mass flamers?!

Those number were of course just pulled out of my ass, but you get the idea. Number in company is not an issue, number on the field at once is. This limits both while still allowing you to recrew, build, etc.

TBH, I would prefer a more realistic representation that makes Rifles/Volks engineers by paying for an upgrade. This would unlock mines, flamers, etc on them as well as the defenses.

[tank130]

I was going to post a rant about fucking morons ruining a very good thread with (I am too fucking stupid to use words) pics, but I decided to move the thread and remove the (I am too fucking stupid to use words) pics.

We have an awesome discussion going here.

[I2ay]

You could just go with the 'Murica Fuck Yeah approach and allow people the freedom to spam if they want to. Awww yeeeah

[MissileJoe]

He summed it up