Tank's Legacy

[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]

Reading the thread on repairs and having a discussion with Volsk the other day, I got to wondering. With Tank having left the mod and volsk taking over and beginning his own process for where the mod goes in the future, It would be a good time to discuss the lasting core changes to EIR that took place under the Tank era (~2015-2018). I know Tank was around far longer than that, but I think 2015 was the first true no more EIRRmod year.

I think it would be cool to look at what the lasting effects of his changes are and what people think of them in general. Listing them off what I remember;


1.) The new Doctrine selection design (No more tree's, freeform picks)

2.) The new Doctrine theme design (Inf - Mob - Armor)

3.) The Global vehicular changes (-10% accel/deccel, -2.5m sight)

4.) The Heavy tank toggle (Persh/tiger AP/HE)

5.) The new Repair system

6.) The new offmap system

7.) Specialization of Light Vehicles

8.) The PE redesign (4 man pgrens, LV pop bonuses, Cheaper IHTs)


I want to actually see discussion on these core changes to EIR, not just stuff like "its kewl" or "I hate, pliz remove m8". I think this analysis is one worth having to really put into perspective how much EIR has changed during this 3 year period and whether people feel its for the better or worse.

[Dauntless07]

I would add to that list core changes to the US faction.

-The debates surrounding its utter dependence on Rifle squads, and whether that's good or bad. Whether Garands should be buffed, and the compromise of "Assault Garands"
-Zooks on Rifles as a response to the Axis LVs steamrolling slow and cumbersome ATGs while kiting Rifle stickies
-Making Marines a core unit in the roster, and why it failed to reproduce the combined arms dynamic of the WM's Volks/Grens.
-Introducing the Chaffee as LV AT, and the GMC as LV indirect AI to the core roster to match similar units available to WM. These changes were warranted IMO.

[Tachibana]

The introduction of the chaffee fits in with LV specialization. All those other points did indeed happen, but they are not tied to tank130 directly.

[XIIcorps]

I would avoid calling it Tanks legacy, while the changes happened during his tenor as mod lead they're hardly just his changes.

The two changes i have a gripe with are

The new repair system, the old model worked fine.

And

Tiger/Pershing HE/AP toggle, given the effectiveness of these tanks guns they don't need it unless it was made an option for all vehicles which would add more micro to an already micro intensive game.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

I personally don't mind a lot of the changes after I got used to them excluding the heavy tank toggle and repair system.
XII why you no open Snapchat no more?

[Tachibana]

I guess legacy is a strong word. I think its fair to say that most these changes likely would never have come about if not for tank though. As for these changes though, some I like, some I don't as most of you.

Things I think have been great;

1. The new single pick doctrine design: I think this is one of the biggest changes EIR has had since its start and it has worked out great imo. No more dead unlocks at t1/2. No more "everything is about this t4/dual t3". It feels more like a salad bar being able to pick and choose what and how you wanna play. As it stands, most of the doctrine do a good job of supporting every playstyle pretty well(some exceptions of course due to the limitations ill mention later).

2. The global vehicle sight and accel/deccel changes. In the end, all they do is make vehicles a little bit harder to micro, but still keeps them the same in effectiveness. It creates a minor skill gap, which is a good think in my opinion. Makes HHAT a bit more effective and make yolo vehicle rushes a bit less effective unless they are properly timed (skill gap).

3. The new offmap system: Free offmaps are dumb, plain and simple. Now offmaps are no longer free. I would have preferred not having to spend Pop, but in the end, this is a great change.

Changes that I'm neutral about.

1.Tiger/Pershing toggle: I don't mind them really for the same reason I don't mind accel/deccel. You gain a micro tax (toggle) but also gain more effective weaponry (HE is more accurate, AP get 20% extra penetration, 10% extra damage). Another Skill gap, though this one is greater than the global nerf gap. So, it the idea is to keep the game slightly easier for new players to get into it, I can see removing this tax.

2. LV specialization. Meh, they do what they do. The only bad thing I could say is that this eats away at the uniqueness of PE LV's, but that was later addressed with the PE LV pop changes. If they all got reverted tomorrow, I don't think it would end up effecting EIR all that much.


Things I think turned out poorly or could have been done better.

1. Inf - Mob - Armor doctrine themes: EIR has always been a game of aggression, territory control and attritioning manpower. Due to the limitations the design, the 4 Infantry doctrines are miles above the rest in terms of ability to win games since they can achieve those 3 basic goals of EIR the easiest. These pointed themes can work, but they have to be done in a far less strict manner.

2. The new repair system: The new repair system devalues good micro and creates an inverse skill gap.
     a. You can make more mistakes with your vehicles since you can get more repairs on them
     b. Even if you lose a vehicle, no problem, you didn't lose the repair
     c. As time has gone on, players have become more savvy about timing their repairs and keeping them alive, so hunting them down rarely works
     d. Soft AT has gotten worse. Stickies/mines/rear treadbreaks have all lost extreme value since expending 1 repair is no longer a big deal.
     e. ATG's are less useful since facetanking an atg, destroying it and then repairing the damage from face tanking probably can be done repeatedly vs just once or twice max.
     f. Due to the lower efficacy of AT assets in the new repair system, actual AT load in a company has rocketed up, meaning that Armor players who DONT stack up on repairs will suffer.

The concept and reasoning behind the repair system was pretty sound, but in action, it has done more overall harm than overall good to To EIR gameplay. Of course, thats on the caveat that we agree on what core EIR gameplay should be.


Overall, I think the Tank era has been pretty good outside a couple failed experiments.

[Shabtajus]

Well he banned me 3 times, 4th ban was permanent But hicks356 helped me come back. Overall i thing Tank was a guy who saved a mod from bankruptcy and got Volski onboard which is the best thing of all. Volski is a great dev who will give me Tiger Ace

[CrazyWR]

Really can't stand what he did to doctrines.  Rather than the pick your own, which is fine, he more than anyone led the charge to water down and make all the doctrines as boring and not fun as possible.  This is a trend I really wish would be reversed.

[Batgirl]

Well he banned me 3 times, 4th ban was permanent But hicks356 helped me come back. Overall i thing Tank was a guy who saved a mod from bankruptcy and got Volski onboard which is the best thing of all. Volski is a great dev who will give me Tiger Ace

lol

[Hicks58]

I'm responsible for helping you come back?

Fuck me, I'm glad I stopped drinking.

[TheVolskinator]

Volski is a great dev who will give me Tiger Ace after he's given it infantry armor and a bike mg for a gun

Really can't stand what he did to doctrines.  Rather than the pick your own, which is fine, he more than anyone led the charge to water down and make all the doctrines as boring and not fun as possible.  This is a trend I really wish would be reversed.

I'm working on it. Fun will return, but old meme-strength 42.5 m range RRs and 2-shotting-StuG-capable-non-AP-ATG TR won't be making a return.

[CrazyWR]

boring 2.5% reload buffs don't really do it.  If every doctrine is OP, then its still balanced.

[Mysthalin]

I'm working on it. Fun will return, but old meme-strength 42.5 m range RRs and 2-shotting-StuG-capable-non-AP-ATG TR won't be making a return.

2 shooting isn't that much of an issue - vanilla 80-guns can do it with vet 3 and AP rounds.

Old TR allowed you to 1-shot StuGs. Good times. I'll talk about tank's legacy point by point later, so everyone can just tune off now.

[Tachibana]

boring 2.5% reload buffs don't really do it.  If every doctrine is OP, then its still balanced.

While I agree with the first half of that statement, I find it hard to agree with the second half.

EIR already has(and will probably always have) a slight issue in the fact that games can often be decided In the company tab if one company simply counters another. In a good game state, even companies with really bad match ups can still compete in a game with good micro and solid game understanding.

The stronger you make units, the greater that gap becomes, the less enjoyable the overall experience becomes on the end of the person who simply doesn't have enough counters. Its true, in a "Everything is OP" mindset, all the factions would probably achieve a ~50% win rate, but the manner in which they do it would probably be harmful to the longevity of EIR.

Lets take another example from the most recent designer to buy into the "Everything is OP, then nothing is OP" philosophy: MisterSchmidt.
I wont even talk about the 42.5 (functionally a near 50 range RR). Lets instead talk about the mortar.

You could stack two doctrine 15% damage reductions(one general, one light cover) that combine for approx -28% Damage. Throw it in with a 20% HP booster and the 20% range boost.

At just vet one, you end up with a mortar that has -38.5% received damage, 84HP AB armored crew with fire up, 96m of range (Compared to WM mortar 85m)

So, your counter argument is "Buff the shit outa dat WM mortar". Sure, that can be done, but you then run into 2 issues.

1. Do all 3 WM doctrines get equivalent mortar buffs? If so, how do you give 3 different Mortar buffs of the same quality without having mirror doctrines?

      1a. If you don't, what are other 2 doctrines gonna do with their mortars when they run into AB mortars?

      1b. If you do, what are the buffs you then have to give the other 5 allied doctrines so their mortars are not so obviously outclassed in this mortar war when they run into the anti AB super mortar for Axis? How do you get 6 allied mortars with equivalent buffs without Mirror balance?

      1c. You buff some other way to counter the Mortars, but then that means buffing an extra tool in this interaction so the counters to that tool then will need to be buffed to keep up (in particular soft counters). This, however, still leaves the issue of the WM mortar being in a state of "WTF am I even here for" until that AB mortar is off the field.


2. What about the general target of that AB mortar? A flak 88 has 100 range and it already susceptible to mortar fire, now a mortar has 96m of range. What about mgs/atgs? How do we buff them to deal with the meta with Super mortars? If we buffs those things to a level to compete with those super mortars, what about the stuff those things counter?



This all exacerbates the basic issue I had at the beginning of simply taking people or parts of peoples companies out of the game without even getting a chance to play with them. "Everything is op, nothing is" philosophy simply doesn't work because it exacerbates inherent flaws in the EIR system with a giant magnifying glass. Much like Trump, its a simple sounding solution with very little thought put into the consequences of the solution.

[Unkn0wn]

I felt a good philosophy was always to avoid range buffs because they completely change encounters (suddenly you now have a sniper that cant be countersniped or a mortar that cant be countermortared etc) and ideally avoid stat buffs in general because they're just bland and don't add anything on the surface though they can stack up with other bonuses for disastrous and (often-times) invisible effect.

I can't say I agree with the approach of adding a cost to these kind of bonuses in the upper doctrine unlock table as the go-to fix like is the case currently. They do in principal help balance things out by ascribing a cost to each benefit, but it only makes the fact that they are bland and unimaginative buffs even more apparant (I now have to pay for them on every single unit and even a 20 MP cost quickly adds up to a few infantry squads less for often a very neglible benefit on the field) This in contrast with unlocks from the bottom table that actually add new playstyles, abilities, etc. for the price.


My biggest beef with the doctrines currently is just how messy it's all become. The bottom unlocks have like a gazillian units, often with one unlock giving access to a long list of units while the top ones just 3/4 filler abilities that only serve to confuse players with walls of unintelligible text and subsequent truckload of new unlocks filling up people's company builders. I'd argue a return to simplicty, not just for the sake of new players but also for the sake of the game - I'm not against the "salad" bar approach per se, though I do miss some of the distinct pathways each doctrine used to offer. If we insist on a salad bar approach; get rid of the filler abilities, spread out the meaningful unlocks across the two tables (or even better make it just one table, though it'd still be good to have some sort of logic to the way every unlock is listed) and make sure that every unlock is actually wortwhile, adds something to the game AND perhaps even more importantly discernible (nothing worse than powerful invisible buffs)

In addition, if we keep the approach of having a cost associated with every unlock, I think we may want to consider increasing the total MP pool. Right now the 8k MP pool feels very restrictive to field a balanced company and make use of all the unlocks.

[TheVolskinator]

I'm not sure I understand your concerns.

1 - Buffs are bland and unimaginative and associating costs to them is only a bandaid fix.

2 - Lower unlocks unlock too many units.

3 - Upper unlocks are too descriptive--we should make descriptions easier to understand by simplifying them (i.e. Tank Reapers - ATGs gain better penetration and range).

4 - Being able to mix and match doctrines is bad; we should revert to rigid trees.

5 - If we continue to make players pay resources for unlocks, we should increase the MP pool (which in effect does the same thing as making everything free, relative to the old system).

Do I have that right? I would like to point out that it took almost two years of work with a team of 2-3 of us to get us to where we are now. To demand basically reverting the entire system and overhauling it with "no stat buffs", "no prices", and "simpler descriptions and effects" would drown me--not a team, but me--in another year or more of work. What you ask is functionally impossible.

[tank130]

Ya..... so about the Tank legacy thing.

Tank recognized the mod was dead and nothing short of a complete overhaul was going to change it. The problem was, the mod was coded in such a way that only a small percentage of the mod can actually be changed. Everything you find as cluttered and non-intuitive is a direct result of the limitations of the coding within the mod/launcher.

The game design presented would have been very successful if it was implemented as originally designed. The original doctrine design was to have very impactful, meaningful doctrine choices - at a cost. The down fall started when people started qq about additional costs before anything was even created. The design failed at the speculation of issues, not actual issues.

The repair system would have ( and still can be ) very successful if a relative cost was associated to repair units. The value of repairing vehicles is grossly understated and has resulted in under valuing the repair unit. The cost of repair should be valued closely to the value of having a repaired vehicle.

Anyway - glad to see the mod limping along still and I am encouraged by the work Volks continues to do. There have been very few people in this mod who earned enough trust to have the keys to the office - good job Volks!

[XIIcorps]

Ya..... so about the Tank legacy thing.

Tank recognized the mod was dead and nothing short of a complete overhaul was going to change it. The problem was, the mod was coded in such a way that only a small percentage of the mod can actually be changed. Everything you find as cluttered and non-intuitive is a direct result of the limitations of the coding within the mod/launcher.

The game design presented would have been very successful if it was implemented as originally designed. The original doctrine design was to have very impactful, meaningful doctrine choices - at a cost. The down fall started when people started qq about additional costs before anything was even created. The design failed at the speculation of issues, not actual issues.

The repair system would have ( and still can be ) very successful if a relative cost was associated to repair units. The value of repairing vehicles is grossly understated and has resulted in under valuing the repair unit. The cost of repair should be valued closely to the value of having a repaired vehicle.

Anyway - glad to see the mod limping along still and I am encouraged by the work Volks continues to do. There have been very few people in this mod who earned enough trust to have the keys to the office - good job Volks!

can i have a set of keys daddy.

Also

while not everyone agrees with the changes implemented during tanks time at the helm, they did bring life back to an otherwise stagnate decade old mod.

[Shabtajus]

Who has power to drop a banhammer now?

[TheVolskinator]

I do.