Pool Removal Poll

[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

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Well if anyone pays my months wage i dont see why he shouldn't.

[EliteGren]

Well, lets review the thread.

A total of 17 people posted in this thread.

4 out of 17 are Devs. Of those 4, only 2 actually play the game on a regular bases
1 Out of 13 only posted to take the opportunity to criticize tank130
1 Out of 13 posted to defend tanks honor......lol
7 out of 13 have clearly stated they want pool removed
2 out of 13 have clearly stated they want pool to stay
1 Out of 13 has not clearly stated his preference other then he want me to be more like Andy
1 out of 13 is a representative of our resident minority group who says he misses me, but does not indicate his pool preference.


So ya, in typical Eirr fashion, the dev team will ignore all logic and reality, listen to the loudest group and base the future of the mod on that input. We essentially have 9 people posting a clear definitive response in regards to pool and we are going to make a game change decision based on those 9 people?


Here's what I really find ironic. At our peak, we had 7 people on the dev team.
The same 7 people voting against pool right now are pretty much the same people who complain the loudest when the Dev team makes decisions without community input. Some of those people complain like morons, and some of them do it in a more professional and respectful way. But they all don't like it when 7 devs control the mod..........

Anyway, I just thought it a little ironic is all 

Now let's review the results:

The result of 41 peoples votes

68% Yes (28)
29% No (12)

A lot of people have voted without posting reasons as to why they voted what they did, which is understandable.

the dev team will ignore all logic and reality, listen to the loudest group and base the future of the mod on that input.

No, what the dev team will ignore is the most important part, the people who haven't voiced their opinion in the thread itself. There are a lot of players who just read the forum and play the game. What you'd do is listen to the silent majority of the people who have voted since they clearly outnumber this "loudest group" you are talking about, and nothing else.

What we have here is a clear result as to what the majority of people want. If this simply gets ignored, then that's plain unprofessional.

[ick312]

i followed the discussion and i changed my mind, pool is good. Maybe some pool values should be rethought, but all in all its good.


just an idea. if pool is removed we will see mando coys, having not a single soldier in, BUT spamming mando jeeps like crazy

[EliteGren]

BUT spamming mando jeeps like crazy

Run an Ostwind in your company and enjoy

[ick312]

Run an Ostwind in your company and enjoy

dude, add some little john

[EliteGren]

We could just do theorycrafting for days and just add more and more units this way. The point is that every "spam" is really one dimensional and shallow. Let me say this, it will be chaotic the first week or so. But once people realize that after the initial fun their company is actually really that easy to defeat after people have adapted a bit, they will naturally gravitate torwards a more balanced build by default due to

A) realizing their company can not deal with a lot of things
B) they want to actually win

This is important: since everyone wants to be prepared against any sort of spam, and realizing that a pure "spam company " is vulnerable and they want to feel safe with that company to actually win, they will keep adding different counters to it and in the long run you are not left with the majority of people running 30 commando jeeps, but with people running companies that are prepared for every sort of spam attack, AKA rather balanced companies (omg!!one!11)

This is why I strongly feel this needs to happen as a test, so we can see how the meta evolves. It might be better, it might be worse, we will only know if we do it. Effort for this change is negligible and can be easly reverted, so I don't see why it's not worth a shot. The community agrees. Please, tank. Be reasonable here with me

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Yea just look at how the Goliath spam worked out, was amazing to use at first as people were dumbfounded by it, then as soon as it became common people figured out how to counter it and the spammers had to rethink their companys( for the most part anyways, still allways gonna be some idiot that blobs and looses everything to it.)

[Mysthalin]

If anything gets spammed consistently, constantly and to great effect that means one thing and one thing only.

It's too cheap/strong and needs a nerf. Not a fake limitation. I've argued this same point since before pool has come into play, and I have not changed my mind. Pool and hard-caps only hide the issue of a unit being too strong for its cost. They do not fix it.

[CrazyWR]

truth

[nikomas]

It's too cheap/strong and needs a nerf. Not a fake limitation. I've argued this same point since before pool has come into play, and I have not changed my mind. Pool and hard-caps only hide the issue of a unit being too strong for its cost. They do not fix it.

I honestly disagree with this or I'd personally like to see a better argument for it, pretty much all compeditive games I've played has some sort of limitation on units other than price be it time, unitcaps or construction time.

[Unkn0wn]

Well, because we shied away from stat changes for a long term and only were able to make price changes it was often impossible to fix spam with just pricing alone. Just look at panzerfaust pricing history, +10 Mun and everyone dropped them, -10 Mun and they were spammed all over the place.

Also I think there IS a quantitative effect at play in some cases; some weapons and units become exponentially more effective when fielded in larger numbers. You could argue that this too is simply the result of a minor imbalance that is already present in one single upgrade or unit but too negligible to notice on the individual level (yet incredibly noticeable on a larger scale), but even then it begs the question if such negligible imbalance warrants the alteration of unit stats and possible interruption of the precarious balance that exists for the individual unit. It sure is a lot easier and cleaner to address such problems only for the scale on which they present themselves.

I'm not arguing the current availability system is fine as it is mind you, I think it's flawed and we should try to come up with something better. I AM saying that having some sort of availability system is the preferable solution.

[nikomas]

It's done, temporarily, and can change back at any moment...

This should be good.

[AmPM]

Well, because we shied away from stat changes for a long term and only were able to make price changes it was often impossible to fix spam with just pricing alone. Just look at panzerfaust pricing history, +10 Mun and everyone dropped them, -10 Mun and they were spammed all over the place.

Also I think there IS a quantitative effect at play in some cases; some weapons and units become exponentially more effective when fielded in larger numbers. You could argue that this too is simply the result of a minor imbalance that is already present in one single upgrade or unit but too negligible to notice on the individual level (yet incredibly noticeable on a larger scale), but even then it begs the question if such negligible imbalance warrants the alteration of unit stats and possible interruption of the precarious balance that exists for the individual unit. It sure is a lot easier and cleaner to address such problems only for the scale on which they present themselves.

I'm not arguing the current availability system is fine as it is mind you, I think it's flawed and we should try to come up with something better. I AM saying that having some sort of availability system is the preferable solution.

TBH  I've never understood  this,  you  can change values by  much smaller numbers than 10,  nothing keeps you guys from making something 23 munitions  instead of 20...

[XIIcorps]

TBH  I've never understood  this,  you  can change values by  much smaller numbers than 10,  nothing keeps you guys from making something 23 munitions  instead of 20...

considering the current state of the warmap leaves you with odd numbers of resources.

18mp 6mu 28fu for example is the total of one of my coys.

[jackmccrack]

Agreed

[nikomas]

Or it might just be about how some things get out of control quickly when spammed, whereas one by one they can be of limited tactical value. It's not a matter of cost increments, you guys missed unknowns point entirely.

If you are going to have "Specialist" tools in a game they'll probably need caps. The nature of a specialist weapon means that it is limited utility but really effective in said area, because of the limited utility it can't be to expensive. If it's to expensive then nobody will take it since a general tool can do more jobs, if it's prized low however it will be spammed with impunity like we've seen time and time agian.

Balancing only by cost makes it really, really nigh impossible to have anything but a core unitset.



Even tabletop wargames use several methods of restriction, even games like warhammer or flames of war require you to adheer to a command chain and you're limited in the number of special unit choices you can take. It's done that way for a reason and it's not only for historical accuarcy on flames of war case.

[AmPM]

Both of those games suffer from the exact same issue though, that there are obvious best choices and everyone in a competitive scene runs what is basically the same list for each army. There is a reason "net lists" have become so popular in the last few years. Many units are ignored unless the entire list is built around it, and each category has a very simple best option. This is such an issue, that they have to force you to take units you would otherwise ignore in order to play.

I don't think you want to take you design from Games Workshop or Battlefront =)

[nikomas]

No, but can you imagine the chaos that would incur if there was no restrictions on compositions? Battlesuit force heyo! Anyway, take videogames then, give me one complex, balanced RTS that only uses resources for balance.

All RTS games like Vcoh that have any sort of tech progression are ruled out, time progression is one of those factors that EiRR does not have.

[ick312]

No, but can you imagine the chaos that would incur if there was no restrictions on compositions? Battlesuit force heyo! Anyway, take videogames then, give me one complex, balanced RTS that only uses resources for balance.

All RTS games like Vcoh that have any sort of tech progression are ruled out, time progression is one of those factors that EiRR does not have.

ground control II

but u r right

[XIIcorps]

No, but can you imagine the chaos that would incur if there was no restrictions on compositions? Battlesuit force heyo! Anyway, take videogames then, give me one complex, balanced RTS that only uses resources for balance.

All RTS games like Vcoh that have any sort of tech progression are ruled out, time progression is one of those factors that EiRR does not have.

would star craft series qualify ?

Also you used balance to describe balance and that lost me.