Doctrine suggestion and balance discussion

[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

[ick312]

Hi,

here is the thread to come up with ideas how to balance doctrines and to discuss what they do.

Just Brainstorming or full 12 Docs submits both is welcome!

plz post your ideas understandable and short.

[ick312]

what do docs do?

each doc choice should encourage a certain playstyle and therefore buff a unittype into a certain direction. Lower doc choices have a lesser impact on the playstyle then higher ones.
Buffs or Debuffs granted by the doc choices shouldnt encourage spam.

how efficient are they?

i suggest to somehow measure it in Firepower or health increase, certain things wont be able to be put down in Firepower % increase but as an overall orientation i suggest this.
1. unlock - 10% more Firepower or HP
2. unlock - 15% more Firepower or HP
3. unlock - 20% more Firepower or HP
4. unlock - 25% more Firepower or HP

[Hicks58]

So long as doctrines remain as free buffs they will encourage spam. You're not investing to get better units, you just get better units as a base.

To maintain the most cost efficiency you'll want to get as much usage out of your doctrines as possible. If your doctrine gives buffs to Riflemen, you'll get as many Riflemen as you possibly can to exploit the advantage to it's maximum. It doesn't matter how gentlemanly you want to be, it's the smart thing to do and those that want to win will do it whether you like it or not.

Simply put, a "Free" doctrine system that gives percentage combat buffs will never work, and can never be truly balanced in the asymmetric environment of EiRR.

That's why balancing them is a pain in the ass, and that's why trying to balance 72 end game options based upon this system gives me regular grade A headaches.

At this point, it's less about making them perfectly statistically balanced, but more making sure that everything is reasonably useful compared to everything else. If you look at a doctrine, see the T4's, and one out of the three is a total no-brainer, then there's a problem. If you then look at the 3 doctrines of a faction, and see that one of the doctrines is just flat out better than the other two, then there's a problem.

So that's what really needs to be addressed. They need to all be worth taking, and they all need to be entertaining enough to use. This also has to be done within the constraints of the current doctrine system.

[ick312]

@Hicks you are right to a large extend!
Any system that buffs a certain unit WILL encourage spam. The question to which extend is spam acceptable. If an entire company consists out of 4 units: ATGs RRs Crocs and Mortars, then there is something wrong. But if i play LW then i mainly want to use FJs!

So the docs should be centered arround creating synergies. Good examples for this are: omniscienes, fanaticism, Heavy Support, Blow the Bridges, ultra Decryption, HVAP, Mobility, Area denial

The easiest way to force player to use synergies are Auras granted by units, these could be unlocked with the docs. gimme a min to finish an example.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AncgcJ_NSxU8dHFoS21hSGZSUk5STEZzc0Y4Ym0yYkE&usp=sharing

[ick312]

dear Alpha PIG,

1. publish the document that you as reference
2. an orientation IS necassary to ensure that you dont end up with numbers totally out of the line
3. i have my differences with the author of tanks signature. But i understand what let him to that comment.


Actually you gave with your example a pretty good example that an overall numberset is needed. And i need to admit that i have certain concerns about the numbers you are using.

But thanks for the input
and plz be so gentle and sum your posts up so that you are not jamming this thread

[XIIcorps]

Are we aiming for
A) Each doctrine for a faction to have a particular direction
E.g. Defensive doc oriented towards defense
      Blitzkrieg oriented towards offense
  And Terror oriented towards support.

Or are we aim for each of the 3 doc unlock lines to focus on a particular element
E.g. top offense
Middle support
Bottom defense

With synergies between T3's
Or T4's having more synergies with unlocks of the same line.

[aeroblade56]

dear Alpha PIG,

and plz be so gentle and sum your posts up so that you are not jamming this thread

Makes thread for EIR related discussion. respond with calling someone pig GG.

[nikomas]

^Good luck with that.

Nothing mean intended but 108? If you could have even 36 viable and balanced playstyles, one for each tree? You'd be bounds ahead of most AAA games out there, it's not attempted often for a reason.


The only ideas I have to offer would essentially turn eirr doctrines upside down (unit unlocks in top tree's, making core doctrines have different unit sets like airborne rifles being core in AB doc and AB doc lacking tank destroyers/upgun shermans, stuff like that) in more ways than one and somehow I don't think that'd help.... Soooo I'm going to keep out of this unless I have some "Brilliant" idea, but good luck to ye.

I mean it would be cool with thematic unitsets, but It would also take it so far away from Vcoh that I have no idea if it'd work or not.


Edit; I mentioned that idea a few months ago I think and worked up some rough draft, but it didn't seem overly popular so I lost interest/scrapped it, could revive it if anyone is interested.

[XIIcorps]

The only ideas I have to offer would essentially turn eirr doctrines upside down (unit unlocks in top tree's, making core doctrines have different unit sets like airborne rifles being core in AB doc and AB doc lacking tank destroyers/upgun shermans, stuff like that) in more ways than one and somehow I don't think that'd help....

Remove pool values and this could work.

[Shabtajus]

Is it possible to get names for vet5 units? Make rules like no racist or insulting other player nicknames allowed to create or unit will be deleted. It will spice things up. Nice little thing would be fun to have.

Is it hard to give new abillities for units etc vet5 jeep gets 50cal. Wanna know what you guys can do before posting some of my ideas

[tank130]

Is it possible to get names for vet5 units? Make rules like no racist or insulting other player nicknames allowed to create or unit will be deleted. It will spice things up. Nice little thing would be fun to have.

Is it hard to give new abillities for units etc vet5 jeep gets 50cal. Wanna know what you guys can do before posting some of my ideas

sigh................ trust shab to derail the thread first

This thread is about doctrines, not vet. Keep it on topic or your posts will be deleted.

[ick312]

ok here are 5 examples of docs, how i imagine them. The groundideas were:

-combined arms
-offering alternative rolls to units
-encouraging to bring different companies to the battlefield, to create synergies
-tactical playstyle
-simplicity
(tried to get rid of pure % buffs, % are mostly given by auras)

the following new ideas are in:
- on shooting effects
- on hitting effects
- injured or not injured effects
- different unit types combined receive buffs

These 5 doctrines were rethought by me.
Infantry - buffing mainly combined arms!
Airborne - only doctrine which is able to customize their offmaps, besides that advantages if dropped behind enemy lines or at the frontline, OR sabotage and ambush abilities
Armor -  improving tanks, and adding new tactical usages of them
Luftwaffel - strongly centered arround FJs and Flaks, very depended on usage of cover
Scorched earth - delay the approach of your opponent or kill him with fire or try the counterattack!

1 min adding comments

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AncgcJ_NSxU8dHFoS21hSGZSUk5STEZzc0Y4Ym0yYkE#gid=0
ps numbers are easily changed

[Hicks58]

the following new ideas are in:
- on shooting effects
- on hitting effects
- injured or not injured effects
- different unit types combined receive buffs

On shooting effects *should* be possible, but a coder would have to confirm.

On hitting effects are probably not possible unless there's a simple way to code it that I've overlooked (Most current on hit effects utilize criticals or abilities).

Pretty sure Injured effects can't be done, or if it could it'd make for a horrible amount of coding.

Different unit types combining for buffs could be done with small grade auras with appropriate filters for unit types.

[ick312]

On shooting effects *should* be possible, but a coder would have to confirm.

On hitting effects are probably not possible unless there's a simple way to code it that I've overlooked (Most current on hit effects utilize criticals or abilities).

Pretty sure Injured effects can't be done, or if it could it'd make for a horrible amount of coding.

Different unit types combining for buffs could be done with small grade auras with appropriate filters for unit types.

On shooting effects should be possible in the weapon "Fire/on fire actions" section

On hitting effects came also only to my mind via new defined Crits

As far as i know injured effects should be possible  via "Selfaction/requirement action/requirements/ required in state"

[Hicks58]

On shooting effects should be possible in the weapon "Fire/on fire actions" section

That would depend upon what could actually be used in the fire/on fire actions section. As said, a coder would need to confirm.

On hitting effects came also only to my mind via new defined Crits

That would entail making new critical types for all of the existing infantry, modifying weapons appropriately to use them, etc. It would be a LOT of work for a small gain. Most likely something that Niko or Xeoniz would not be fond of doing.

As far as i know injured effects should be possible  via "Selfaction/requirement action/requirements/ required in state"

That thought crossed my mind, but I'm not sure if unit health is a valid state. Being engine damaged can stop use of flank speed for example, but that's critical types rather than unit health. Not only that, it'd have to be customised for units to drop below the 70%-80% health mark specifically (Which I'm VERY unsure about being possible), or the first thing that coughs on the unit would destroy it's buff making it pretty useless.

Hence, a coder would definitely need to confirm that one.

[aeroblade56]

dislike the whola aura idea. just have mixed blobs running around.

[taco355]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vN6_-HYPVofICZ4jhyOQ2qlXPi_0PUpH-MKpueWl86Q/edit?usp=sharingwehr

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av2jGtaCY4wzdC0zWnF0dUdCTldickozVk92WDFiMkE&usp=sharingAmi

[Hicks58]

If people want their doctrines put into the community doctrine thread I put up, PM me. I imagine this thread is going to become fairly large fairly fast so I won't want to be hunting through it.

It'll also prevent accidental doubling up as well.

[jackmccrack]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vN6_-HYPVofICZ4jhyOQ2qlXPi_0PUpH-MKpueWl86Q/edit?usp=sharingwehr

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av2jGtaCY4wzdC0zWnF0dUdCTldickozVk92WDFiMkE&usp=sharingAmi

The Sherman Croc already gets a .50 cal gunner without doctrines. This was a few patches ago. So that T1 needs to be changed. Everything else looks cool though.

[taco355]

The Sherman Croc already gets a .50 cal gunner without doctrines. This was a few patches ago. So that T1 needs to be changed. Everything else looks cool though.

I forgot about that.

Fixd