Community Doctrine ideas

[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]

A good idea would be to put out a job listing for a top knotch RGD coder, find out exactly how much their time would cost, and then set that as the donation goal with a full schedule of what we as players can expect if they are hired.

I'm talking like an actual schedule of rollouts and releases and updates.

You will get the donations you'll need.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

I could always learn how to scar when I get home, I have somewhat experience in Lua and a handfuls of random crap in rgd when I was fucking with my own mod and the some handfuls in http when I set up the wiki, and I wrote a couple of macros to get a hold of things like the armour type, weapon and squad size so I wouldn't  have to write it up into the thing so if anyone would want to point me in the right direction I might be able to help when I have the time.

[tank130]

I could always learn how to scar when I get home, I have somewhat experience in Lua and a handfuls of random crap in rgd when I was fucking with my own mod and the some handfuls in http when I set up the wiki, and I wrote a couple of macros to get a hold of things like the armour type, weapon and squad size so I wouldn't  have to write it up into the thing so if anyone would want to point me in the right direction I might be able to help when I have the time.

IMO - the best thing you can do is take one of our most complex doctrine abilities and try to figure out how to code it in your own temporary mod.

Better yet, try to code a complete factions doctrine. If you can do that, then you can pretty much code anything we need  done for RGD.

[terrapinsrock]

A good idea would be to put out a job listing for a top knotch RGD coder, find out exactly how much their time would cost, and then set that as the donation goal with a full schedule of what we as players can expect if they are hired.

I'm talking like an actual schedule of rollouts and releases and updates.

You will get the donations you'll need.

That is actually a very good idea.

The only problem is how much would be we as a mod be willing to spend on hiring a coder? RGD coders are quite rare to find and would be in rather high demand.

[XIIcorps]

That is actually a very good idea.

The only problem is how much would be we as a mod be willing to spend on hiring a coder? RGD coders are quite rare to find and would be in rather high demand.

im sure theres a few ex relic workers about who wouldnt mind a few extra quid.

 Ever active player donated like $10-$20 we surely could afford to outsource our rgd needs

[nikomas]

Honest question here actually, what do most people prefeer in terms of doctrines?

Simple, straightforwad buffs like AB currently does (Top T4 makes AB awesome, Mid cloaks shite and extra pop and bottom makes crocs and shermans l33t) or lots of little buff across the entire thing like inf doc.

Personally I like more straightforward doctrines, I'm just wondering here. Personally the doctrines that does a little bit of everything seem, well, less fun and weaker than speacialized doctrines.

[XIIcorps]

Honest question here actually, what do most people prefeer in terms of doctrines?

Simple, straightforwad buffs like AB currently does (Top T4 makes AB awesome, Mid cloaks shite and extra pop and bottom makes crocs and shermans l33t) or lots of little buff across the entire thing like inf doc.

Personally I like more straightforward doctrines, I'm just wondering here. Personally the doctrines that does a little bit of everything seem, well, less fun and weaker than speacialized doctrines.

Like how say Roy engies get 1 offensive buff at t1(10% acc for stopped tanks).
Rest are mediocre niche passive buffs with little to no effect.

[nikomas]

Like how say Roy engies get 1 offensive buff at t1(10% acc for stopped tanks).
Rest are mediocre niche passive buffs with little to no effect.

Ablative armor? To be fair, that one is to damned simple.

But yeah, the ideal doctrine should encourage some sort of playstyle based around that doctrine... At least in my mind. We have a lot of doctrines that are just a mishmash of buffs here and there and well, they're good, but not very special.

[XIIcorps]

Ablative armor is pretty moot considering the buffs applied to atgs, hhat and tanks in opposite doctrines.

ACTUALLY its about the only viable choice for an re player. Because bottom t4 is half in and top buffs emplacements for wtf lols point.

Not to mention the unit specific buffs that no one uses in the current meta .

[nikomas]

Not really intending to get into an RE discussion here thou... Please answer the question

[XIIcorps]

Depending on the doctrine I guesd they could use a offensive defensive and support style tree.

 many buffs to an already powerful unit is what we have atm.
 So unless your using that unit your doing yourself harm.

[tank130]

I think the problem with a very specialized doctrine is it results in only a few company builds. Whats the point in using any other units if they don't get the buffs.

I know at one point we were trying to make 2- T3 be as good as one T4 in an effort to create more options, but it generally failed.

There was also an effort to try and go in trees as XIIcorps noted, but that doesn't always work for each faction.

What has really failed in doctrines is the inability to balance them across all factions. Even when one may balance with another faction, two factions using combined doctrines can cause an imbalance.

IMO - we should scrap all docs as they are and start over with a resource cost associated.

[nikomas]

The problem is that if you have wide doctrine buffs, you generally just end up with something useful but uninteresting... They both have positives and backdraws, hard to say whats better.

Not to generalize or anything, but as far as I can tell the most heavilly played doctrines out of any faction seem to be the more straightforward, focuesed ones.

[tank130]

You could be right - it could also be that the most played doctrines are the ones that actually got completed with the new doctrine drafts?

I know the new drafts had taken the most desirable doctrines as a base line. Perhaps we need to get them completed to truly test them?

Or we could completely redo all the doctrines for the 5th time....lol This seems to happen every time a new coder comes along............. lmao!

[Hicks58]

Refer to this Tank:

The problem with the doctrines is that most of them are all constructed to different standards.

For example, terror and infantry were built in a similar way, and ended up as a similar proportion (And coincidentally, are pretty much the strongest two doctrines in EiRR at the moment).

And then you've got things like Commandos or AB, which weren't really constructed with a proper design in mind - They are consequently niche doctrines or flat out useless for the most part.

Ideally, all of the doctrines would need to be constructed with a single design philosophy in mind, with the same idea of scale (How much buffing to be done, is it reserved or do we go back to the hilariously buffed days of old) and accounting for resource investment (Make the damned doctrines cost resources, or it becomes spam the most buffed units). As well as this, certain concepts would have to be agreed upon and solidified for every doctrine. For example, do we have no range buffs for any doctrine, or do we ensure that all doctrines are proportionally capable of unlocking range buffs for it's specialist areas? Do we make damage buffs forbidden (Hey there randomly overbuffed HHAT) or do we find ways to make them applicable and have equally scaled abilities for all of the doctrines?

Ideally, EiRR needs to have reward units significantly scaled down, a RGD patch put out to get PE a bit less borked (Not too many statistic changes would be needed, it could be done with pool for the most part) and fix a few currently existing issues (Hai there PzII's sniping every shot).

After that, ALL of the doctrines need to be looked at. Not a couple at a time in progression like we always do, ALL of them. Whenever EiRR has looked at a few doctrines at a time, the design has changed over time due to "Lessons learned" or "Changes in taste".

Oh, and I'd very much be for specialised doctrines.

With 3 T4's, you could have doctrines specialising in at least 3 different areas, which would make for quite a lot of variety over 12 doctrines.

[nikomas]

*Deep Breath*

Alright, if we're going to contemplate another redesign... I think I have an idea here that'll be easier to balance, easier to code and hopefully more interesting. I'm going to make a mock doctrine draft tomorrow to show what I mean, but it's pretty much going to break most our current doctrine rules and, well, require a lot of work on my part. It's a bit hard for me to put into words, so I'm going to wait until I have the mock draft up before going on.

Core idea is that we move unit unlocks to the top tiers and support (buff) unlocks to the bottom tier. Tier 4's are now how you unlock specialized units like the Pershing and so on. We try to move away from % buffs as much as possible and we give everything an attached cost.

The two problems here is how the community in general would take losing the % based buffs we are currently using, and the fact that you'd only be able to use certain units (like the Pershing) under one doctrine, so it might be to inflexible to be worthwhile.

[tank130]

If we decided to redo doctrines, then I would almost insist that we implement a resource cost

[nikomas]

If we decided to redo doctrines, then I would almost insist that we implement a resource cost

But to do so, we have to remove "Minimal % buffs", because you can't expect someone to pay for something so little as +5 sight range. We'd also clutter the launcher.

[nikomas]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgCx_VlgMc-edDRmeFQtenJCZURILTNNbmM0TjJLdXc

Something I threw together quickly just to show, kind of, what I mean. It's an alternative, but it's probably to far way from what we've already got at this point. This is pretty much the only way I see us being able to introduce costs.

[NightRain]

The problem is that if you have wide doctrine buffs, you generally just end up with something useful but uninteresting... They both have positives and backdraws, hard to say whats better.

Not to generalize or anything, but as far as I can tell the most heavilly played doctrines out of any faction seem to be the more straightforward, focuesed ones.

I like this post. I just do. The first sentence sums up everything. Hell I like the whole post.