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

[Hicks58]

As do I.

Wagglepuss is always watching.

[Shabtajus]

Can you ban Unknown an EIRRmod with message “your ban expires SoonTM?”

That would be hilarious.

[Mysthalin]

Ok, so, with my internet being degraded to this new-fangled technology of WiFi after builders fucked everything up, I've got some spare time, as I ain't bringing the glorious volks horde to victory till my mainframe and cat 6 cable are back online.

I thought I'd whip out the old abacus and quill and get to do some writing.

 First off - thanks to Tank for keeping the mod going. Many of us noveaux-riche fellows who made a name for ourselves in the past 5 years may be tempted to now scoff and point at the poor, old, construction inclined geezer and haughtily declare that we could easily keep the mod running off our paychecks without even noticing it. Just a quick reminder - 5 years ago we weren't in a position to do that, and Tank kindly offered his own money to keep things ticking along. For years and years. He's now handed off the reins, so if you still feel like you can support EiR without even noticing the expense - do it now. The donation button isn't going to click itself.

As for "Tank's Legacy", here are my thoughts:

1) The New Doctrine Design (No more trees, freeform picks).

This to me is a bit of a double-edged thing. On the one hand, additional choice is rarely a bad thing for the player, and the movement to free-form picks would be something I'd shout from the rooftops about. However, this comes into two main issues that have overall marred the experience we, as a playerbase, could have received:
a) The doctrines were never re-designed to make all choices equivalent. You still have trash/marginal picks, as well as no-brainers.
b) The way the launcher is hard-coded means that T4s DO have more "cost" compared to a T1, regardless of it being free-form. If you pick 3 T4s, you only get 1 T1. Compare that to 3 T3s, 2 T2s and 3 T1s.

The two issues above mean that, despite the good intentions and clear reasoning as to how it could make the game better, the overall effect has been lacking. Despite overall enjoying the idea of moving towards free-form choices, I would actually recommend to go back to limited choice under these circumstances. The old "double T3s or a T4" methodology worked - for better or worse, and the community had a lot of experience with it. There is a lot of untapped design knowledge that could be tapped by employing the community to return to this methodology, and allow for a plethora of different playstyles in each doctrine.. if the doctrines are designed well.

2) Inf - Armour - Mobility

Although I understand the general reasoning behind this change, I am not a fan. It is too restrictive design wise, and it is no surprise the doctrines have drifted rather rapidly from these stated goals - probably as soon as the first draft. By definition they restrict choice, and stifle creativity, as the boxes that the "doctrines" were put in to were not only highly restrictive, but uniform across factions. I do believe it has granted one positive for us as a community, however - it's got us to think a bit more about what doctrines could be. Rather than, say, SE being the infantry rapist, and TH doing nothing but destroying tanks, it did force us to rethink how these doctrines work. This push, I believe, is something that should not be thrown out with the bathwater if EiR reverts this design decision.

3) Global Vehicular Changes

Overall.. I think the sight range has been good, as it encourages higher levels of combined arms play, but the slow-down in accel/deccel has been a shame. It is not just 10% as Dire implies in the OP - it's a rather more significant 0.75 modifier across the board - and it has hurt overall tank micro play. Perhaps unintentionally, it has actually buffed tanks like the tiger, relative to the P4 - as the difference in maneouvrability is less pronounced. I do believe the sight nerf should remain, but the Acc/Decc nerf should be reverted to bring about more exciting tank play.

4) Heavy Tank Toggle

I see why it was done, but I disagree with the approach. Although I love EiR for it's micro-heavy bits of fun, having to toggle the ammo-type on a heavy simply is not. It adds nothing for the user, and it adds nothing for the enemy. It's simply an annoyance to get past. I would much rather revert to the original guns and priced in the heavy tanks more in line with their performance - particularly from a manpower and munitions perspective. The issue was never that a tiger/sherping was too powerful. It was always the support that you could still field alongside.

5.) The new Repair system

I kind of like it from a balance point of view.. but I don't like it gameplay wise. The old system allowed for more aggressive armoured builds, while also creating a risk/reward mechanic for the armour player. Do you repair your 50% pershing to full, or will you risk one more pak shot before you piss off? Do you repair at the front and risk getting your nice tank ganked with no way to stop the slaughter? Or do you go back to the spawn? The old system created more questions and more decisions - all of which were meaningful. So I would like to go back to the old system overall - though with the caveat that moving repairs should probably just never happen again.

6.) The new offmap system

Great general idea, but terrible execution. And not due to the fault of the idea, or the coders. There simply seems to be no way to both make people pay for off-maps, and not tie them to a shitty unit that is extremely annoying to use. Overall, I do think I would prefer for this to be reverted. Off-map guy scouting is infuriating as hell from a gameplay perspective and off-maps are sorely missed in the recent shift to OMG style doom-fort gameplay that appears to be taking hold. I would absolutely recommend going back to the old system. I miss recon runs, and I miss rocket Arties. I miss strafing runs and bombing runs. I see the reasoning to move to a cost-based system.. but the tech isn't there to make it workable. Until that can be resolved, I'd rather stick with what we had that made the game more fun and dynamic.

7.) Specialization of Light Vehicles

Overall - I think this has been great. Clear roles for vehicles is great. My main issue though, is perhaps the slight OVER-specialisation that we've had. I would like M8s to still mess up light vehicles, and do damage to tanks from the rear. Equally, I do not see why pumas should bounce every shot from an M8. Tweaking the system so that light vehicles can fight each other relatively equally would be a good change - and I do not see an issue with toning down the AI firepower of these vehicles to compensate. Overall I think it would add one more, better-balanced tool in the tool-kit of every EiR player.

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

Honestly, great change. PE is a great faction nowadays. The Cheaper IHTs with no MG has worked very well - the only thing that saddens me is the apparent disappearance of the original IHT.

[Tachibana]

Not sure where you're getting the 25% nerf from.

[CrazyWR]

Not sure why we can't have more fun buffs without any range buffs at all?  I completely agree range buffs need to go.  96 range mortars are obviously dumb.  That being said, 2.5% buffs don't excite anyone. 

With regards to your concern that you win games before they start in the company building screen...honestly my answer is so what? Building companies is the most fun part, and finding a build that works for you and is fun is great!  No build no matter what can face any type of company and have a shot.  That is absurd.  If you build an anti-support weapon company you obviously aren't going to be dominating against heavy tanks.  If the enemy in a 3v3 shows up with a KT and 4 tigers, sure, you're screwed.  This is never going to change.  But with careful coordination with your teammates, you can eliminate the paks supporting the tanks and other weapons and let your teammates try to knock em out.  Making your company REALLY good at one thing is both fun and encourages teamwork.  Not sure why this is a bad thing at all...

[Mysthalin]

@Dire

My bad, thought it had been 0.75. Is what one gets when they rely on their old, cobweb dusted memories too much. The 0.9 reduction still has a larger effect than one might think, as it in effect adds 11% to the time to reach top speeds or slow to a halt, and you will need to cover more ground to achieve either full speed or a full stop. This is especially noticeable if trying to kite enemy infantry.

I also agree with Crazy on winning and losing games before they even start. The freedom to build companies in the way that you want to build them will always come at the cost of sometimes getting it wrong, and building a company that just isn't very effective. Or a company that is not prepared for what your opponent is going to bring to the field. If you want to remove the possibility of people losing games before they even start due to company builds the only way to do this is by removing choice from players in the first place, and setting everyone on pre-built, "balanced" companies. I think we can all agree that such an approach would go against the very fabric of what EiR is supposed to be about.

What we should be looking out for instead are the units that when chose en-masse out-perform most other company builds, and still give a beat-down to companies that, in theory, should be hard counters. Then we can play around and tinker with these specific units until they perform in line with their price and popcap (looking at you, Mr. Wirblewind).

[WindCries]

EIR definitely has its best chance to be succesful in years thanks to Volks being in charge now.

It's like the end of the frozen winter in the Chronicles of Narnia... hope is returning to the land.

From a gameplay standpoint, there's lots to look forward to. Thoughts on some of the changes that were ill-concieved and which dumbed down, slowed down, or overall OMG-ified EiR in recent years (that I know Volks is working to correct now that he is el capitain).

High level, EiR used to be a fast paced, aggressive game where battles between well matched teams would swing like a pendulum and typically mobility and abillity to react to sudden changes and new threats meant victory.

By contrast, the game now feels much slower, more plodding, campy and tends not to be as punishing for players who like to set up nice lines of support weapons and who maybe struggle with actions per minute. That's not to say that style of gameplay is inherently bad, it's just more lethargic. And it is arguably very different than what made EiR so compelling in some of its better years back when EiRMod was around.

Some touchpoints:

1. The New Offmap system

Slowed down the game and added unnecessary clumsiness to temporary buffs and artillery etc. I'm not a huge fan of damage dealing offmaps in general, but even worse is adding in essentially free (resource cost) scouting units that serve no other purpose than to slow down and complicate gameplay. Everything that adds unneccessary complexity inherently slows the game down and this one is a prime contender.

2. The Repair System

The new system never made much sense (dedicated repair squads who can literally do nothing else other than soak up pop and sit on the field idle inbetween repairs). It doesn't promote fast, momentum based combat and decision making. It's even less logical than the OMG system (which is bad enough) in that at least there you aren't ending up with single-purpose nothing units that just wait around on the map. The repair kit system was not perfect, but it at least brought with it a decent risk vs reward and made the prospect of infinitely repairing the same tank 5-6 times impossible.

This system was not a good idea from the start and reverting or abandoning it may bring a lot of the mojo back to the mod's gameplay.

3. Individual Unit Upgrades

This OMG approach to upgrades has arguably contributed to armies being smaller, games being shorter (for that reason), and for the mod being considerably more byzantine and confusing for new players. Not to say that new players were really much of an issue under the management of the past few years but with Volks in charge and a Steam release on the horizon there's a good chance we'll start to see them returning in the future. No better time to greatly simplify and streamline doctrinal unit buffs.

4. PE Changes

All in all, these aren't too shabby. Probably one of the good changes from the past few years was making IHT's cheap, pgrens a bit more feasible as mainline infantry and overall helping PE live up to their fast and fluid promise. But a few changes (like giving every doc a sniper, or giving some docs MG's/support weapons for some weird reason) were a step in the wrong direction. Also the inherrent campiness/slowness of the mod's gameplay at the moment due to other changes across the board has somewhat mitigated the value of the PE mobility concept.


5. Heavy Tank Toggle

This was a really nonsensical concept from day 1 (it added nothing meaningful or positive to overall gameplay) but everyone kind of knew it then and it seems pretty unanimous that everyone knows it now. Good riddance to it.

6. Freeform Doc Pics

This is great.

7. Global Vehicular Changes

Seemed more based on an individual not enjoying having to micro and be prepared for vehicles (aka how the mod's gameplay overall got dumbed down and slowed down to cater to slower players) than rooted in what actually promoted good gameplay. Should be undone to be honest, and I say that as a guy who typically runs less AT on the field than he should and doesn't use vehicle heavy companies often.



Overall, with Volks I think we're in good hands going forward. In the end what he's doing with Steam, his activity, lack of ego and genuine desire to work hard is probably going to make the next year or more the most interesting and potential rich period EiR has seen in a long, long time.

[TheVolskinator]

Heavy tank toggles will be dead in a patch or two.

Repairs and offmaps are on the table for a change/reversion.

Squad upgrades from doctrines, on the other hand, are not. I fully support the idea of paying moneys for upgrades. Lambast that choice if you wish, but this is one point I refuse to budge on. Paying for your buffs makes them a conscious choice rather than a no-brainer.

Know that I'm taking a chainsword to the current iteration of the infantry-mobility-armor doctrinal formula. No, I'm not taking input or drafts from the wider populace. Lothen and Myst have my ear, otherwise it's more than likely I'll ignore your input. Sorry.

[CrazyWR]

Why would you select the doctrine if you don't intend on using it?  Obviously its a conscious choice.  But alright

[Tachibana]

Not really. On my AB company for example, I dont use pathfinders on all my AB units. Sure, 7.5m of moving sight is great since it lets you self scout anything you'd really want your AB to do, but the 20mp cost is pretty steep so I only put it on my RR squads. Same for the 50% moving acc bonus only being on my carbine squads.

[CrazyWR]

Right but you've already paid a cost to pick that doctrinal selection and not something else, why do you have to pay twice? 

[Unkn0wn]

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.

Just to say i didn't mean to criticise the steps EIR has taken and the excellent work Tank and now you are doing to keep this mod alive. I'm really grateful for that, as is everyone here I'm sure and I'm by no means advocating for a drastic overhaul. Just wanted to highlight some of the areas in which I feel there's some room for improvement still.

1, 2, 3, 4. I think the salad bar approach is fine really. If we ever get a chance we should ideally just change the graphics so it's clearer that there's no longer pathways and a distinction between the top and bottom table. I would suggest spreading some of the unit unlocks out, to replace some of the more bland stat buffs. And with all doctrine unlocks having a cost, there's no reason why we cant have more powerful stat buffs at least - either permanently or on cooldown (though again I just want to stress it's really important these buffs are visible in game, i.e. either through a special icon or a clear ability effect indicator)

5. I think increasing the base resources somewhat is easy to do - i seem to remember there was a link to do just that in the SQL. Worth considering at least. Perhaps from say 8k to 9K starting manpower. In the old days we also used to have resource bonuses on top of that, but it's just better to have everyone with equal resources from the get-go anyway

Beyond that, with a possible steam launch ahead of us, it's also really worth thinking through all changes from a "new player accessibility" point of view. That was never EIR's strong point to begin with but if we want to ensure the mod's longevity we definitely want to ensure all game systems and launcher functions are as easy, straightforward and streamlined as can be.

[WindCries]

Squad upgrades from doctrines, on the other hand, are not. I fully support the idea of paying moneys for upgrades.

I think that's fair given that it's not really a big issue like the offmaps/repairs things.

With that said the squad upgrades does have an impact on newer players (it's more complicated and requires a lot more pre-game and in-game preparation/memory) so there might be merit to simplifying or streamlining it in some way. More experienced players don't really have much difficulty with it for sure, but they aren't really the problem.

Also i've noticed when you have lots of stacking buffs or upgrades on single units it seems to drastically raise the risk of some abilities' icons blocking out others etc. Which makes sense -- I don't even want to imagine how complicated checking every single combination on every single unit that has upgrades might be for conflicts/overlap in their icons.

Perhaps there's  some way to strike the happy balance between it costing resources to get upgrades on units and not having it be so byzantine and inaccessible for new/medium skill recruits who will surely start arriving when the Steam release happens. Especially when you get into thosse doctrines who can have 3+ special upgrades on even just baseline inf.

[Tachibana]

RE: Offmaps

What if we just limited it to one offmap guy that you can purchase all your offmaps on. Once he gets called on field, you gain the offmaps for use in the old manner (ability bar, unlimited range). It would keep a resource cost on offmaps but make it less finnicky than the 80 range limitation and the multiple free scouting units.

Of course, you still end up with the extra step of putting the offmaps on the radioman, so that may be in conflict with making the game more streamlined for new players. I guess it really boils down to how on board people are with offmaps having a resource cost to them.

[Unkn0wn]

Ideally you'd just buy the off-maps for munitions in a seperate box in the company builder in the launcher. Technically possible at least, but I suppose we have no one who can do launcher code. It needs to have a cost to be in line with other doctrine abilities, otherwise they will be a no-brainer unlock.

A single radioman solution would still be a bit of a pain to deal with but is still an improvement over what we have currently at least.

Or, perhaps a more creative solution - what if selecting an off-map doctrine unlock would just reduce your overall munitions in the launcher by a certain amount? Not sure how difficult that would be to code, but could be a more elegant solution - provided it's clearly communicated to the players.

[WindCries]

^

All of those ideas sound a lot better than the current back alley chaotic circus of free, 1 pop, scouting units who can pick up and use weapons and take multiple sniper shots to kill.

[TheVolskinator]

^

All of those ideas sound a lot better than the current back alley chaotic circus of free, 1 pop, scouting units who can pick up and use weapons and take multiple sniper shots to kill.

They're on the chopping block for the newest patch. 55 HP, Infantry armor, no Heroic crits. They'll gain crits and become armed at Vet4, but lose their ability to pick up slot items. Gives incentive not to throw them away, and makes them easy to kill.

[Shabtajus]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3hTwsvJV_A

[TheArea]

Dat shab 

[TheVolskinator]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3hTwsvJV_A

TA delet