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

[Tachibana]

I have a serious design question I would like you to answer before going this route;

How does tweaking infantry health so drastically actually promote a more infantry based meta?

If we reduce tank functionality, we will inherently get a more infantry based system. If we reduce fuel, we will naturally get more infantry. If we increase the pop of tanks, we will naturally see more infantry.

If we mess around this drastically with squad numbers and unit health, we are not promoting infantry gameplay, we are creating a shoot from the hip balance situation. I think you have to be careful when talking game DESIGN. It is very often that you get sucked into the issue of balance changes rather than deaign changes. This change to infantry accross the board does nothing to change core gameplay in a positive sense, but it drastically changes the balance of the game.

Basically, I'm saying it is a bad idea.

[TheVolskinator]

EINE SCHNIPPE

+1

[aeroblade56]

agreed with tachi. remember we all said we would do small changes first

i also want to point out that if we give rifleman 65HP as walkin said

our infantry doctrine (new one will give them a further 10 hp making it 75 the same as a gren if we go by walkins numbers.

[Walkin]

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 :/

Please, speak up! No matter what happens, we'll be better off with you contributing to the discussion. I genuinely believe that what I'm suggesting will improve the gameplay of the mod, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my ideas are perfect on their own. This is the Overall Game Design thread, and I'm merely posting my ideas on game design, as requested.

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.

I've never liked the way crew weapons function in EiR, and while I do fully admit that crew weapon functionality is a secondary concern (compared to fixing vehicle performance and infantry gameplay), I do believe that limiting support weapons to piddly 3-man teams is overall bad for the mod. Do note that I'm also suggesting a significant increase to price and Population for these units.

How does tweaking infantry health so drastically actually promote a more infantry based meta?

I'll make another post later today about how and why I would suggest these changes, but let me point something out before I go make breakfast:

Riflemen
55 individual HP -> 65HP
330 squad HP -> 390HP

Grenadiers
80HP -> 75HP
320HP -> 300HP

Volksgrenadiers (remain unchanged)
60HP
300HP

Knight's Cross Holders
3-man -> 4-man
90HP -> 80HP
270HP -> 320HP

Stormtroopers
95HP -> 80HP
380HP -> 320HP

Panzergrenadiers
5-man -> 4-man
80HP -> 75HP
400HP ->300HP

I merely suggest to narrow HP differential from 55-95 (Riflemen/Stomtroopers, difference of 40HP) to 60-80 (Volksgrenadiers/KCH, difference of 20HP). That's cutting the HP differential in half, which will lead to much much more consistent performance from infantry across the board. Right now, it's obvious that Riflemen are underperforming, and Panzergrenadiers are overperforming, and this is how it needs to be addressed. Again, one unit having almost 75% more HP per man than another (Riflemen compared Stormtroopers) is just absurd.

Also:

Engineers
3-man -> 4-man
55HP -> 65HP
165HP -> 260HP

Pioneers
2-man -> 4-man
70HP -> 65HP
140HP -> 260HP

Huzzah, Engineers and Pioneers are finally useful!

[Dauntless07]

I have a serious design question I would like you to answer before going this route;

How does tweaking infantry health so drastically actually promote a more infantry based meta?

Not addressed to me, I know, but I think I get what he is trying to say. Because the HP gap is so high, some infantry are basically not worth using. The Americans seem to suffer from this the worst, as their bread and butter Rifle Squads are basically incapable of successfully engaging most other Axis squads, (in their base forms.) When you consider default Rifles are about as effective as default Volksgrenadiers, and the US player doesn't have any other Infantry options available, (as of now,) then we can see Rifles aren't really worth using, even though they make up a huge percentage of most US Coys currently due to the huge amount of leftover manpower when building the real company.

Basically, Rifles in this mod are completely unreliable as the cornerstone of the US Faction, so of course you would focus on a more effective component, (tanks,) when leading a US Coy.

[Tachibana]

I'm merely posting my ideas on game design, as requested.

It is not game design you are giving though, it is game balance.

Grens, with their 80HP, simply outclass Riflemen and their 55HP.

makes them incredibly unreliable, lackluster, and undesirable

Rifles melt to anything stronger than a stiff breeze

Riflemen in particular, you transform them into a worthwhile, generalist infantry unit

go toe to toe with Axis infantry

more consistent performance from

Riflemen are underperforming, and Panzergrenadiers are overperforming

Every single one of those points you make in your suggestions are balance issues, not design issues.

Matters of design would be;
What is the function of infantry in this mod/What should it be.
What is the function of infantry in a specific faction/What should it be.
What is the function of infantry in a specific doctrine/What should it be.
Do the infantry we have currently perform the function we want.

Matters of balance are:
Riflemen are under-performing, lets do 'X'
Pgrens are over-performing, lets do 'Y'
The health gap is large, lets do 'Z'


Design should dictate balance. Balance should not dictate design. Changing the health of infantry would change the balance of the mod, NOT the design of it.

Right now, we are at the "infantry should be more common" stage of design. Your balance suggestions do not increase the want for more infantry, they simply change the way they fight each other. Hold off on making balance suggestions until we have a design we want. THEN we can go into balancing in a fashion that leads to matching the design.

[tank130]

I think you have to be careful when talking game DESIGN. It is very often that you get sucked into the issue of balance changes rather than deaign changes.

Which is exactly why I told you guys in the Dev lobby not to code anything until we have a game design document in hand. The doctrines your were considering coding may be useless if we change, the vet table may be useless if we change, and so on.

The discussion being tabled in the Dev lobby is one of altering overall design, then balance from that. The biggest mistakes of Eir in the past was just doing shit and trying to balance it later -  don't go down that road again.

Carrot, you idea is a good idea but putting numbers too it at this point is just going to crumble into theory crafting and conjecture.

[Walkin]

It is not game design you are giving though, it is game balance.

I absolutely stand by my assessment that what I'm putting forward are design changes, not balance changes.

Firstly, game balance is game design, they are one and the same. There's no such thing as a design decision that doesn't also affect the balance of gameplay, so of course there will be balance ramifications to any design decision.

Secondly, even according to your definition of balance-versus-design, I would still assert that what I've suggested are design changes: when fldash & co created EiR, they decided to import vCoH units without adjusting their stats too much. That was a design decision they made, and (at least relative to infantry HP pools and stat lines) it is a decision that still stands to this day. Yes, the issue of PGrens overperforming and Rifles underperforming is what has brought this matter to light, but that's merely a balance symptom of an overall design problem. EiR has changed so much over the years that (I feel) it is no longer good game design to have the HP gap between infantry be so massive, which is why I suggest the overall design change of quasi-standardizing infantry HP amounts.

Note that I'm suggesting an across-the-board altering of a unit's per-man HP to the 60-80 range. Doing so would universally affect gameplay in EiR, without targeting a specific unit or faction. [I didn't include Brits in my list is because I don't know their stats in EiR, if they have Soldier armor or not.]

[Dauntless07]

Carrot, you idea is a good idea but putting numbers too it at this point is just going to crumble into theory crafting and conjecture.

I agree. If we are at the "Infantry Support should be relied upon more," stage of postulating, we should focus on what infantry should become in general terms. In the case of the US, "Infantry" is practically synonymous with Rifles, so I'll offer my thoughts on this specific squad.

Rifles are essentially the polar opposite of a Sniper, they run in expecting high casualties, or perhaps are fodder to make way for the real flank attack, and keep shooting until they have brutally beaten down the enemy.

If this is the mod's design goal in terms of infantry combat, then Rifles need to be capable of going toe to toe with most mainstream Axis infantry. Because the damage output of Rifles is so low, lowering the HP values of the Axis squads (and/or raising Rifles) is probably a better way to achieve this than increased Damage or Fire Rate on Rifles, as that would ruin the balance we have with Volksgrenadiers.


Secondly, Rifles are intended to fulfill a wide variety of roles on the battlefield. They need to reflect that diversity. Specifically, I am referring to their inability to seriously threaten enemy light vehicles, and armor in many instances too. I think the Sticky Bomb range buff at Vet 2 is desperately needed across the board to solve this problem, and the MU cost needs to be dropped from 60 to something reasonable like 30-40. Zooks on Rifles is another suggestion with merit insofar as it broadens their flexibility.

[Walkin]

If this is the mod's design goal in terms of infantry combat

As far as I'm aware, there are no game design / unit functionality documents anywhere, which has lead to the runaway design problems we're facing now.

[Dauntless07]

As far as I'm aware, there are no game design / unit functionality documents anywhere, which has lead to the runaway design problems we're facing now.

In that case, I think drawing up the desired capabilities of each base unit should be a step taken before moving on to further balance changes. We need the bigger picture of how units should perform in relation with each other across the board. I could write up something myself, but I'm not sure how much weight the perception of a recruit holds. I'll start thinking about it anyway, and maybe it can be of some use.

[Walkin]

In that case, I think drawing up the desired capabilities of each base unit should be a step taken before moving on to further balance changes. We need the bigger picture of how units should perform in relation with each other across the board. I could write up something myself, but I'm not sure how much weight the perception of a recruit holds. I'll start thinking about it anyway, and maybe it can be of some use.

Well, the problem is thus: We currently (as far am I'm aware) have no game design documents to work from (and even if we did, who knows how worthwhile they would be). These game design documents need to be created by game designers, who have a specific vision for the mod, and the expertise to make it a reality. Unfortunately, all the original and virtually all previous game designers of EiR have left the mod, seemingly for good, and the community is currently down to about a dozen players (though surely some will come back once doctrines are in and "everything is finished"). We can all pitch in and share our ideas with eachother, but at what point does a decision actually get made?

edit: for clarification, this post is not meant as an attack against the current dev team or anything.

[Scotzmen]

Can't assign till i know what we are doing. If we are changing the base game, I'm nay ganna assign jobs for docs.

[AlphaTIG]

Quote from: tank130
I want to ensure we have a 100% decision on the process before we do the wipe.

[Scotzmen]

Changing the base game was never on the cards till now metz. Shit comes up even after we were 100% sure

[tank130]

Quote from: tank130
I want to ensure we have a 100% decision on the process before we do the wipe.

Changing the base game was never on the cards till now metz. Shit comes up even after we were 100% sure

Don't be a fucking dick head Metz. The only intent of your post is to flame/troll. Flame/troll me and your ass will be out of here very quickly.

Well, the problem is thus: We currently (as far am I'm aware) have no game design documents to work from (and even if we did, who knows how worthwhile they would be). These game design documents need to be created by game designers, who have a specific vision for the mod, and the expertise to make it a reality. .............

When we created the vision for Eir2, we created a 6 page document on every detail. The community never saw this as the Dev team at the time strongly agreed that involving the community would just bog down the process.
At the time, we were in negotiations with the OMG dev team about a merger and we were also trying to find a common ground on the design.
I created a new website and all discussions were held in the dev lobby of that website.

My point - it was my insistence and organization that resulted in a  complete design document - Unfortunately most of it will not work in EiR because we no longer have a way to alter the launcher.
I am trying to push the current team to get a full design together and I feel for the most part they will agree. The struggle is agreeing on what the design should be and the work involved.

Our intent was never to redesign the game, just change the doctrines. Taking the game back to its bare bone roots has given us the opportunity to see it from a new fresh perspective for all of it's weakness and strength. We have masked true underlying problems with cool units and shit doctrines - we have an opportunity now to get it right.

[Hicks58]

We have masked true underlying problems with cool units and shit doctrines - we have an opportunity now to get it right.

I have said for such a long, looooong time that vCoH design and balance is not suited to an environment like EiRR.

[Walkin]

Wow, that's all very interesting. Thanks for being so transparent about it.

I have said for such a long, looooong time that vCoH design and balance is not suited to an environment like EiRR.

+100000000