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

[tank130]

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.

Why not pay for minimal % buffs. Who says you have to pay a lot. It's all relative really.
But truly, the only reason all that useless shit is there was to create a sense of immersion & growth. If the only thing in the doctrine tree was a T4, then it would be a pretty boring looking tree now wouldn't it?

[nikomas]

Why not pay for minimal % buffs. Who says you have to pay a lot. It's all relative really.
But truly, the only reason all that useless shit is there was to create a sense of immersion & growth. If the only thing in the doctrine tree was a T4, then it would be a pretty boring looking tree now wouldn't it?

Pretty much, I do agree with this... But lets think what a hollow illusion this really is. You always have enough points to grab all T1's and 2/3 T2's, and for most doctrines, in my mind anyway, they're all almost so minimal you wont really notice them with a few exceptions like cloaking kettens or mobile cloaking paks.


As for adding a cost to all small buffs, while we could do that imagine the logistical nightmare that would cause in the launcher. Some units would have to have more than 10 upgrade buttons and I don't even think we have enough space in the launcher for that. We've also established that we cant expect an update on that front, or you've said yourself.

Even then, imagine having 10 upgrade per unit to select for small, statistical buffs... That's Eve online levels of user unfriendliness.I certainly don't disagree with the premise but I don't see it working either with how we're currently structuring doctrines.

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

Can't tell if mocking shitty grammar or... Actually, you most likely are, given the "quality" of that post, Yikes.

[Shabtajus]

I like nikomas idea. All i pray is that god gives him strenght to make his words become codes. Amen

[nikomas]

If we want to go really crazy, couldn't we just remove the requirement of owning previous tiers in that tree and make abilities that you could simply mix and match? No need for fake progression but lots and lots of customization!

Sorry if I'm going on to much, normally swapping such a fundamental thing in the mod might not be a good idea this far into it... But it sure as hell sounds like a way to make choices matter more.

[salan]

speedy keeps spamming me with this topic.. Only thing I can say on it is its not worth getting upset about.  Few true modders have the drive to make a mod their life unless they have creative control. 

anyone coming to do RGDs for EIRR is coming into a well established group of people who have their direction already planned out.  Doesn't mean they wouldn't have some say and ability to shape things.  But it is what it is.  Its a lot of effort to do a full blown mod.  And EIRR is at the point where you guys really shouldn't be re-writing its doctrines again...   Saddest part of the mod was always the need to 'redo it' every so often.  Its a great mod with a great team of people.  Its to bad the RGD department has been so lacklsuter, its the base of so much of the mod.

[aeroblade56]

I like nikomas idea to pick what you want at will.

[nikomas]

I ain't gonna take much credit for it, it's been bouncing around for a long time. Still not sure the majority of players would actually want such a shift, it's not easy to tell.

[ick312]

the good desgined doctrines are already encouriging a certain playstyle.
See Tankhunter, Terror (except bott4), Blitzkrieg, Armor, Mandos, RA (ingnoring this stupid enfield), even infantry would be great if tank reapers, jumbos and rangers are put back into normal balance.

Srsly most doctrines are fine and good. I dont see a reason to redo them. Balance the units and fine.

[XIIcorps]

the good desgined doctrines are already encouriging a certain playstyle.
See Tankhunter, Terror (except bott4), Blitzkrieg, Armor, Mandos, RA (ingnoring this stupid enfield), even infantry would be great if tank reapers, jumbos and rangers are put back into normal balance.

Stupid enfield ?
you mean the scoped enfield that's amazing a long range and terrible at short, kinda like scoped mp44's...... no way there actually good at every range.

[PonySlaystation]

the good desgined doctrines are already encouriging a certain playstyle.
See Tankhunter, Terror (except bott4), Blitzkrieg, Armor, Mandos, RA (ingnoring this stupid enfield), even infantry would be great if tank reapers, jumbos and rangers are put back into normal balance.

They do not. For starters there are very few unit specific buffs. It's always buffs across the board: to volksgrenadiers, grenadiers AND knight cross holders or ALL tanks or ALL support units. The buffs are all general and bland, like -10% received accuracy. It's essentially just a choice between slightly better infantry, tanks or support. But there is virtually no difference in how you play aside from shifting focus to another group of units. The only defining factors are doctrine unlocks. They drastically alter how you can play and give you interesting choices. But there is no reason why it shouldn't be the same for the doctrine specializations.

Let me give you an example of how it could be:

tree1 (assault): buffs pzIV, mp40 volks, halftracks, pumas, motorcycles, medkits
tree2 (overwhelm): buffs panther, flamer pios, schreck grenadiers, kch, mortar smoke, flamer halftrack, grenades
tree3 (defence): buffs stug, hmg, lmg grenadiers, nebelwerfer, ostwind, bunkers

What you get is three different choices that affect your playstyle and enourage different combinations of units, upgrades and abilities.

[ick312]

They do not. For starters there are very few unit specific buffs. It's always buffs across the board: to volksgrenadiers, grenadiers AND knight cross holders or ALL tanks or ALL support units. The buffs are all general and bland, like -10% received accuracy. It's essentially just a choice between slightly better infantry, tanks or support. But there is virtually no difference in how you play aside from shifting focus to another group of units. The only defining factors are doctrine unlocks. They drastically alter how you can play and give you interesting choices. But there is no reason why it shouldn't be the same for the doctrine specializations.

i need to disagree:
lets see TH t4s as an example:
- mechanized support use mortarhts, to arty atgs, use munitionshts and stummel to hold your opponent away. slowly advance with marder, while your infantry is secured in HTs
- spare parts: flank all the time with ACs and shrek in hts (and maybe use additionally  your berge)
- APCR: Chase the enemy tanks down, panther becomes a hunter, marder rips enemy tanks and JP 2 shots an ht or m10.

every point of the listed above is another playstyle and another build( and that are just my builds, another players sure have other options)

 I think that doctrines encourage a special playstyle and therefor design is good! But i perceive that the balance of the units and the buffs simple doesnt match <=== is that right said?

[tank130]

Even then, imagine having 10 upgrade per unit to select for small, statistical buffs...

Why would you think there would be 10 upgrade per unit? You would not purchase it per unit, that would be insane. You would purchase it just like you do now, but it would cost resources.

I certainly don't disagree with the premise but I don't see it working either with how we're currently structuring doctrines.

You missed my point. If you are considering reworking the doctrines for the 4th or 5th time, then truly rework them and make it a worth while change. We have proven with years of reworking and game play that the current doctrine structure does not work and will never work across all 4 factions.


For everyone else:

What Nikomas is alluding to is what we are doing for EiR2 and we should seriously consider it for EiRR1. In fact, it would seem very logical to me to test it in this working environment before spending hours testing it in a new mod.

Here is the proposed structure as I would like to see it.

1.) Choosing your doctrine would give you the same or similar unlocks as the current bottom Tiers. (strafing run, King Tiger, etc) It would cost resources to use any offmaps or units.

2.) We would remove the top tiers and replace with a mix and match system. There would no longer be 12 selections. We would get rid of the filler bullshit stuff.

3.) All the abilities would have varying resource costs based on their strength/effectiveness and balanced accordingly.

4.) Some of the abilities would be limited to a specific doctrine to create additional uniqueness.

5.) The mix & match abilities would come available based on War progression. The longer the war is going on, the more unlocks available.


If I am not mistaken, 95% of this change can be done without Eirrmod or changes to the launcher. There would be no reason to change the artwork in the launcher to test this change.
The current doctrine system is tied to War progression, so that mechanic is already in place. Charge resources to select an ability is a SQL change ( I think)

[Groundfire]

The only doctrine rework I would ever even consider at this point is to take all the statistical change doctrine stuff, make them upgrades instead of abilities and put a cost to them.

That's the only thing i'd touch. It would be almost all behind the scenes.

[nikomas]

Yup, pretty much all of it should be doable like tank said.

The issue with making the unlock itself cost resouces is that I don't actually think we have a function in there right now to have doctrine selections add or subtract resources. That's why I said we might have to do it on a unit per unit bases.

If we stay away from many small buffs and go with "Equipment" style stuff it might be doable however without adding said function. That's actually why I tried to go for a concrete things in that test doctrine there, "Stabilizers" or "Camo netting" are things that are viably purchused on an individual basis, for a price.

We can cheat on offmaps by adding them to a unit, this has been suggested before. If we tie offmaps to a "Command unit" on the field, say, a scout car or something, we can attach costs to the abilities this unit can buy. Hell, can just make it a small, indestructible radio post in the spawn zone.

[Groundfire]

We can cheat on offmaps by adding them to a unit, this has been suggested before. If we tie offmaps to a "Command unit" on the field, say, a scout car or something, we can attach costs to the abilities this unit can buy. Hell, can just make it a small, indestructible radio post in the spawn zone.

I like this idea. That or a radio truck that initially costs 0 resources, but you can buy the offmaps as upgrades as you unlock them. Then it just sits in the back field and while locked down, it has access to it's offmaps as an ability.

That wouldn't be hard to code and it's well within our abilities. Just have to remake the offmaps as upgrades along with the 2 baseunits.

[nikomas]

I like this idea. That or a radio truck that initially costs 0 resources, but you can buy the offmaps as upgrades as you unlock them. Then it just sits in the back field and while locked down, it has access to it's offmaps as an ability.

That wouldn't be hard to code and it's well within our abilities. Just have to remake the offmaps as upgrades along with the 2 baseunits.

Still, it'd be so much easier if there was an option to just buy them... Oh well, we'll get to that later.

[Smokaz]

1.  Redo all the scar-demanding stuff to simple RGD buffs, avoiding warping the intention of the buff where it's possible
2.  Add a cost to everything T3 and above by making them upgrades (the big workload here)
3.  EIRRMOD just takes 1 day to disable all the non-working parts of the warmap and basicalyl downsizes the advantage of winnign the war by 50%, but also reduces the amount of games to win the war by 50%

4.  if possible add the Battle report thing in SOME way

i'd definitely come back to play if stuff like this was done, even if it was only #1 and #2

[Darsin]

I do really like what tank and niko have been saying about droping the Tier system and just use a resource system or use the T4 unit unlocksystem, and i would support this idea to my fullest, BUT.... will this really happen, not very likely.

So if you RGD guys feel up to it(in principle re doing all the doc from scratch) it would be awesome and great, but if you dont this will either never happen at all or we will have half the docs made in the new system and the other half in the old system, this imo would be the worst chase. So i hope you will either redo it all or not touch a thing.