Overall Game Design

[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

[Heartmann]

Carrot and Volsks back and forth sorta made the points I wanted to come across, But carrot simplified it and made it much clearer ^^

But that is what id like to see, if you loose your inf your tanks are up shit creek ^^

[chuggachar]

Shouldn't we finish with the whole balancing period and doctrine design stuff first before we go through massive changes to the mod, i mean the base unit testing period was supposed to be over 2 weeks ago right? Because the longer you delay this the longer the launcher is going to be completely dead and it's starting to get pretty annoying that everyone is just circlejerking here.

[AlphaTIG]

Shouldn't we finish with the whole balancing period and doctrine design stuff first before we go through massive changes to the mod, i mean the base unit testing period was supposed to be over 2 weeks ago right? Because the longer you delay this the longer the launcher is going to be completely dead and it's starting to get pretty annoying that everyone is just circlejerking here.

lol no cos then doctrines have to get changes again.

although if you scedule massive changes for in 2 years it'd be fine, cos thats when theyre going to happen if everyone keeps cyclejerking.

[tank130]

Shouldn't we finish with the whole balancing period and doctrine design stuff first before we go through massive changes to the mod, i mean the base unit testing period was supposed to be over 2 weeks ago right? Because the longer you delay this the longer the launcher is going to be completely dead and it's starting to get pretty annoying that everyone is just circlejerking here.

Fair concern, but perhaps a little misguided.

When we stated the testing period would be 2 weeks, we made the mistake of assuming the community was wanting balance and that they would stick around to play several different builds and factions to test the true state of things. Unfortunately most everyone left and only a small handful of people are playing and very few of those are trying multiple builds. Most of them found the one thing with the most advantage and exploited it.

I am not going to sit here and argue the merits of that strategy, but it does mean it will take a fuck ton longer to get the information we need.


You may call this circlejerking, I call it using our brains to ensure we are creating new doctrines based on the end goal of the mods design. For 7 years we have watched a dev team just stick shit out there with the attitude we can fix it latter. It is that attitude that has resulted in the mod being half broken for that same period of time.

Taking the time to redirect this mod to a better mod now is the much smarter move then just slapping some shit together on top of a already broken mechanic just because some one is unhappy the launcher is empty.
The launcher will fill when we provide a better balanced, better designed, and better game play mod.

If you don't like the circlejerking and have nothing of value to contribute, then go play another game and come back when we are finished with ours. If you don;t come back, that is unfortunate, but I am confident there will be many people to take your place when they find out how much better the mod is.

[AlphaTIG]

we gave as much input as possible and all that led to was discussions which went nowhere..

there werent even any test patches with the proposed changes, which would lead to actual data, instead, discussions over discussions.

if you want data, give us something to test, change something and see how it impacts gameplay, but stop jerking.

just talking about changes will not change anything.

[Tymathee]

i'm with it, and i've love to see a more infantry focused EIR. There used to be a time you'd see a heavy tank and it would be the bain of the battlefield but it took up so much resources that if you did destroy that heavy, that it would cripple the commanders forces.

also, maybe engineer should repair again like it used to. If someone weants to have 10 engineers to repair their vehicles forces, so be it but then they weaken their infantry pool

[Tachibana]

Overall, I don't think vehicles need that much change to their offensive outputs. I think this is just a residual effect of hyper effective reward units(SP, TAce, Sturm, Crusader, P2, Comet, Scott, Jagdpanzer). The base medium/heavy vehicles I have never seen too much complaint about(Tiger, Pershing, KT, Jagdpanther)

That being said, if you really want to change up the synergy of infantry and tanks up to be more reliant on infantry, then you do not too much change to actually have a major effect. I would purpose

1.) A 10% reduction in accel/deccel across the board. Changing vehicle speed will not have any major factor on how quickly a vehicle can run into trouble and then reverse out of there. For that, you would need a change to accel/deccel. This would make is so that tanks are still capable of speeds that make them potent offensive movement, but would probably take an extra bit of damage if the push was poorly timed/executed and they need to reverse outa there.

2.) A global reduction in sight by either 2.5 or 5. I would lean towards 2.5. I know 2.5 seems like a small amount, but, what is essentially does is make sure HHAT(zooks, rr's, shrecks etc.) always get the first shot off as opposed to the tank. Seeing the tank first will give them time to aim and will probably shoot by the time the tank sees them. The reason I would be wary of reducing the full 5 is that would take most tanks down to 30 sight.

As we have seen from the 42.5 range RR's that the recent AB doctrine gave use, that 2.5 range is more than enough to kite tanks. If we give infantry a FULL 5 RANGE of sight over a tank, I'm concerned that hhat blob can start kiting vehicles too easily without the vehicle being able to respond at all due to basically being shot from the fog of war.


I would note, however, that these changes should be made across the board and not to select tanks due to the balance and selection headaches it would bring. Tanks like the KT or Tiger becoming even slower than they already are would make them even more hit and miss than they currently are (the tiger more so than the king tiger). As we have seen in the current meta so far, every tank up to the Panther is considered fairly well balanced.

We have no access to the Tiger, Pershing, JP or KT as current, but we had about 10 days of unit accessibility prior to the second wipe and from what I saw, no tank performed extremely well that lead me to believe that they were broken. The jagdpanther performed well. Tiger and pershing were slightly below average. I only saw 2 KT's. One from wags which got about 30 kills before being taken off and another from skaffa that got quite a few kills. However I would not want to use skaffa as the basis of performance of the KT since his company was a Ace + KT combo, so there was often very little AT left for the KT.

Even then, that would point towards the TAce being the problem, not the KT.

I think that this idea that vehicles are to effective is stemming from the Reward Unit meta and our failure to effectively balance reward units rather than the base Tank/Vehicle selection being overly effective.

[chuggachar]

/snip

+1

[aeroblade56]

wanted to suggest raising the pop of them right now our tanks are powerful what if we raise the pop so you have to lose field presence?.

[tank130]

Wall of text full of great ideas

I like your thoughts on this. The only item I may disagree on is HHAT firing from fog of war. I think that is actually a good thing. If that tank is supported with infantry, the HHAT will not be in the fog of war. It is only a problem for unsupported tanks.

I fully support infantry having the full 5 more sight range.

[AlphaTIG]

I like your thoughts on this. The only item I may disagree on is HHAT firing from fog of war. I think that is actually a good thing. If that tank is supported with infantry, the HHAT will not be in the fog of war. It is only a problem for unsupported tanks.

I fully support infantry having the full 5 more sight range.

make a patch for testing before you decide pls. we dont know how exactly 2.5 or 5 will affect the game.

[TheVolskinator]

I must stress that HHAT spam might become more of a 'thing'; especially Axis HHAT (since Riflemen have 0 staying power and can't really screen a Sherman or other armor for an extended period, you simply grind through the very few Riflemen that an Armored player has, and he' SoL).

[Walkin]

1.) A 10% reduction in accel/deccel across the board.

I like it. I'd also like to include a reduction to rotation speed, since most tanks are able to hide their rear armor and face new threats too easily

2.) A global reduction in sight by either 2.5 or 5. I would lean towards 2.5. I know 2.5 seems like a small amount, but, what is essentially does is make sure HHAT(zooks, rr's, shrecks etc.) always get the first shot off as opposed to the tank.

Good thinking, I like it.

Tanks like the KT or Tiger becoming even slower than they already are would make them even more hit and miss than they currently are (the tiger more so than the king tiger). As we have seen in the current meta so far, every tank up to the Panther is considered fairly well balanced.

KTs and JPs already require infantry support to function, so they'll actually remain relatively unchanged through all of this. Tigers and Pershings, on their own and without any buffs, are admittedly somewhat lackluster, but once doctrines are out, there'll be no such thing as a "vanilla" unbuffed Tiger/Pershing.

I think that this idea that vehicles are to effective is stemming from the Reward Unit meta and our failure to effectively balance reward units rather than the base Tank/Vehicle selection being overly effective.

This has, in my mind, nothing to do with balance, and much more to do with improving gameplay in EiR. If these changes turn out to be too big of a hit to armor then I'd 100% support buffing tanks in other ways to maintain their gameplay/field presence, I (and obviously a few other folks) just feel that most armor is just too self-sufficient in its current form, and if we're seriously attempting to improve/re-invent EiR, then this is the way to do it.

I must stress that HHAT spam might become more of a 'thing'; especially Axis HHAT (since Riflemen have 0 staying power and can't really screen a Sherman or other armor for an extended period, you simply grind through the very few Riflemen that an Armored player has, and he' SoL).

I'd also like to see a nice buff to Riflemen, so that they're actually decent infantry, on par with Grens, but that's a totally different discussion.

[Walkin]

Speaking of, let's talk about infantry.

First and foremost, I think the "gap" between the different squads is far too wide (with Grens and PGrens being too effective, and Rifles being paper thin). I think the biggest contributing factor to this is the insane HP differential between units. Grens, with their 80HP, simply outclass Riflemen and their 55HP. I understand the want to keep Grens as the superior Axis infantry, but the fact that they have almost 50% more HP per man than Rifles (45.45%, to be exact) just doesn't work in EiR, especially since Rifles are the only infantry choice available to the US. Yes, Rifles still have more total HP, but only barely (Rifles' 330 vs Grens' 320), and this makes them incredibly unreliable, lackluster, and undesirable as mainline infantry (or for any purpose, really). While Rifles melt to anything stronger than a stiff breeze, Grens, at vet 1, can regularly eat a 75mm Sherman shell to the face and keep going, which is just absurd. Rifles, Grens, and all other infantry were designed by Relic to function in vCoH in very specific ways, but these functionalities simply do not work in EiR.

To address this, I'd like to see infantry become a bit more standardized across the board. Unit's with low HP per man should have them raised, units with high HP per man should be lowered a bit, and units with small squad sizes should see them increased. I would propose:

Riflemen
stay 6-man
55HP per man -> 65HP
with price increase to 240MP or so

Engineers
3-man -> 4-man
55HP -> 65HP
3 Pop -> 4 Pop
with price increase to 160MP or so

Weapon Teams (for all weapons and all factions)
3-man -> 5-man
with HP changes as appropriate
3/4 Pop -> 5 Pop
with MP and Mu price increases as appropriate

Pioneers
2-man -> 4-man
70HP -> 65HP
2 Pop -> 4 Pop
with a price increase to 160MP or so

Grenadiers
80HP -> 75HP

Panzergrenadiers
80HP -> 75HP
5-man -> 4-man

KCH/Stormtrooper/Officer
90/95/140HP per man -> 80HP
4-man minimum squad size
with price decreases as appropriate

It's an incomplete list, but you get the idea. By increasing minimum HP, and decreasing maximum HP, you begin to narrow the insane HP gap that plagues this mod. These HP differences may work in vCoH, but they simply do not work in EiR. By increasing HP on Riflemen in particular, you transform them into a worthwhile, generalist infantry unit, with some lasting power, that can actually go toe to toe with Axis infantry. By increasing squad sizes on engineering units, you allow them to actually be useful in some capacity (Pioneers in particular currently serve almost no purpose due to their ridiculously small squad size). Increasing squad sizes on support weapons will give them some actual staying power, and allow them to function like regular 5-man squads, except with a heavy crew weapon instead of an LMG/other upgrade. Finally, adjusting all infantry to fit within the 60-to-80HP range will make infantry gameplay much more interesting, much easier to balance/design around, and eliminates the possibility of  indestructible super units.

[Scotzmen]

SNIP

+1. Would happily support and implement this!

[Walkin]

I can begin drafting a design doc any time, but I'd like to see how the community feels first.

[chuggachar]

Not sure i agree with the support crew increase idea, i have yet to see someone complain about that nor do i think it's ever been an issue IMO they work fine as they are right now.

[tank130]

SNIP

Over all I like where this is going. I too think the changes to the support teams may be over the top, but that is just getting into the nitty gritty. The exact numbers etc can easily be worked out if the concept is sound.

I think careful consideration needs to be given to the design of the faction as well. using support teams as an example: if we increase all mortar squads to 4 man, what do we do with PE mortar platform?

If we make changes to these infantry units, do we create a situation where the cost of other supporting units make these infantry changes OP when combined? Perhaps I am digging too deep at this point, I am sure we can really get into the balance once we have a firm document to review.

What I like about this idea is it also coincides with the general direction we should be taking vehicles/armor - especially if we decrease armor sight 5 range. With the infantry change and the armor change we swing the game design back to infantry battles with armor support with line of sight and recon being very important.

[TheVolskinator]

I'm not sure how well that would work; I'm not really a fan, but since I'm always in the minority I'll just stfu and start coding this right now I guess :/

[tank130]

I am not suggesting you code anything right now - in fact I am strongly urging you guys not code anything until we have a firm design in place.

Shit should be discussed, a document created, and the changes noted. From there, our code lead Scotz should be assigning who codes what and creating TRACS tickets for it.
 
If scotz does not know how to do up a ticket I can show him in five minutes.