Gamechange proposal...

[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

[salan]

IF they took these changes, they could lower the vet requirements to normal VCOH levels.  In 1 game you COULD get vet 3, but the chances of actually surviving would be miniscule in perportion. 

and if you did manage to survive the fight, the next one your in, you run that gauntlet again.  Easy come easy go vetrency is what this mod ultimately needs in order for it to truly become more about the tactical fighting and not the vet.

[scrapking]

Dasnoob, Salan, you are 100% wrong about only killing vet with the "ways I've mentioned".  Seriously.  I've killed off leaderboard infantry, high xp infantry, with plain old infantry assaults.  KCH, Airborne, Rangers, double LMG Grens, etc, etc, etc.  Before you accuse my opponents of being retarded, one of my most recent vet victims was Apex who lost 2 vet 3 Stormies after being flanked by some Airborne.  In the end, there is no difference (in combat utility) between a new vet 3 unit, and one with 1000 xp.  Other than maybe how fast someone might retreat it, and I am fine with that, get it off the field...please.  If someone values their leaderboard status more than their W/L column, or their faction's performance in the war, then I say let them make that mistake.  It doesn't mean that you or I will.

I also am not saying that your reasons (Salan & Dasnoob) revolves around the leaderboard, I understand your points, but certainly it will be a reason for other people to agree with you.

Finally, the biggest reason to not change the system is that it will carry ripple effects through balance, and plans for 2.0.  I am sure we have all heard the rumors about vet 4 & 5.  Veterancy is the backbone of persistency in this mod.  I'm not saying the game wouldn't be fun without it, but it would lose a fair bit of its flavor.

This is one idea that I not only will not support, but will actively thwart at every opportunity.

[salan]

Dasnoob, Salan, you are 100% wrong about only killing vet with the "ways I've mentioned".  Seriously.  I've killed off leaderboard infantry, high xp infantry, with plain old infantry assaults.  KCH, Airborne, Rangers, double LMG Grens, etc, etc, etc.  Before you accuse my opponents of being retarded, one of my most recent vet victims was Apex who lost 2 vet 3 Stormies after being flanked by some Airborne. 

you exagerate because if apex had hit retreat right away, his units could have been spared.  He probably faught for a bit of damage and then attempted to save them, but were either to close, ran through your troops, and PROBABLY had less then max health on them.  Of course I am abstracting from game play and apex's aggression, I don't know the situation, but any FULL HEALTH UNIT that retreats can run right through a group of enemy infantry unless it gets barbwired in and stops retreating.  And apex doesn't retreat that easily anyways.

in essense we are correct.

Finally, the biggest reason to not change the system is that it will carry ripple effects through balance, and plans for 2.0.  I am sure we have all heard the rumors about vet 4 & 5.  Veterancy is the backbone of persistency in this mod.  I'm not saying the game wouldn't be fun without it, but it would lose a fair bit of its flavor.

This is one idea that I not only will not support, but will actively thwart at every opportunity.

ultimately your arguments so far haven't thwarted anything more then our arguments have challanged the thought of this change.  It doesn't matter what we argue about if they plan something else eitherway, but it will surely be a fun argument

I think the flavour this game would lose by making vetrency easy come/easy go would ONLY be good flavour to lose.   * I WON"T PLAY THAT VET COMPANY * wait until people have vet 4 and 5 units, that also likewise NEVER DIE.  Good luck ever getting a game except against noobs, or people who will specifically do everything they can to kill them.

This doesn't stop vetrency or consistency with persistency.  It would mean those who manage to find ways to keep vet alive, actually achieved something worthwhile. 


for instance, I have 2 vet 2 pak guns, and a vet 3 stug.  These units don't have retreat, pak guns are FLIMSY fuckers, yet 1 of them is damn close to popping on vet 3 probably the next game.  It survives airborn drops, and tank rushes and infantry blobs because I am proactive with its placement and movement.  It doesn't exactly run off board very quickly yet its still there, atleast 5-6 games actually used and alive.  my stug I baught when i made the company 12 games ago, and its still kicking.     Not having retreat doesn't spell the end of the game, it DOES mean i have to use actual tactics and strategy to keep my shit alive and protect myself aswell as project fear of loss onto the enemy ... which right now there is none.

[Smithy17]

IF they took these changes, they could lower the vet requirements to normal VCOH levels.  In 1 game you COULD get vet 3, but the chances of actually surviving would be miniscule in perportion. 

and if you did manage to survive the fight, the next one your in, you run that gauntlet again.  Easy come easy go vetrency is what this mod ultimately needs in order for it to truly become more about the tactical fighting and not the vet.

I'm sure most people don't want units to get vet 3 in 1 game, one of the important parts of this mod is persistancy. Alot of persistancy is lost if your units only survive a few games each.

[salan]

IF they took these changes, they could lower the vet requirements to normal VCOH levels.  In 1 game you COULD get vet 3, but the chances of actually surviving would be miniscule in perportion. 

and if you did manage to survive the fight, the next one your in, you run that gauntlet again.  Easy come easy go vetrency is what this mod ultimately needs in order for it to truly become more about the tactical fighting and not the vet.

I'm sure most people don't want units to get vet 3 in 1 game, one of the important parts of this mod is persistancy. Alot of persistancy is lost if your units only survive a few games each.

ya i know the 1 game thing is exaggerated im sure, silly wording on my part.

then two questions for you though.  Tanks, right now the majority of players lose their tanks almost ever game or two.  They don't have a get out of jail free card, hell they have a OH SHIT KILL MYSELF card actually.  and yet there is no complaints about losing a tank except those who are constantly babied and protected at high vet levels.   people EXPECT to lose their tanks, right now no one expects or accepts loss of retreatable units, well infantry.   Mgs/mortars/atgs people ACCEPT because they know they are flimsy, they don't care.   any atgs beyond vet 1 are amazing to see in more then 1 game, yet even then people don't care if they die.

Infantrymen do not fit the rest of this game in the same manner.  Everyone screams foul the instant a vet infantryman dies completely.

you know why?

Because they have a get out of jail free card, and expect it to be just that.  survival of the fittest, or survival of the retreater... I wonder

[Lt_Apollo]

nice ideas, it would add alot more stratagy and micro to the game as you no longer would be able to just run for home, you would have to cover your men and would emphisise that while they may be strong these solders still die. i see your plan as a new solution to alot of old problems.

i would sugest a trail to see how this would work but thats for the devs to decide

[scrapking]

Salan, if you were correct about what can kill vet 3 units, for one, the ladder would never change, and it has, and does.  For two, I have far too many experiences killing off (and losing) high vet units  - in regular combat - to call it a fluke.  I did not exaggerate, I am not lying, I am relaying my experiences which number more than 1 or 2.  If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.  You do not always have the luxury of deciding to retreat at full health, and frankly, if you do, you are playing with a large handicap.

If you think that you are immune to it, then kudos for you, I'm happy for you.  You happen to be particularly careful with your units.  Maybe you should just delete all your vet after every game to compensate?

This isn't going to fly, for oh so many reasons.  No, my arguments haven't thwarted anything, because there is nothing to thwart.  Its like thwarting Ross Perot from being President.  But I do have influence, and this is a worthy cause.

[salan]

Salan, if you were correct about what can kill vet 3 units, for one, the ladder would never change, and it has, and does.  For two, I have far too many experiences killing off (and losing) high vet units  - in regular combat - to call it a fluke.  I did not exaggerate, I am not lying, I am relaying my experiences which number more than 1 or 2.  If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.  You do not always have the luxury of deciding to retreat at full health, and frankly, if you do, you are playing with a large handicap.

If you think that you are immune to it, then kudos for you, I'm happy for you.  You happen to be particularly careful with your units.  Maybe you should just delete all your vet after every game to compensate?

im not immune, far from it, I let my non broadsword company vet die over and over tbh. 

This isn't going to fly, for oh so many reasons.  No, my arguments haven't thwarted anything, because there is nothing to thwart.  Its like thwarting Ross Perot from being President.  But I do have influence, and this is a worthy cause.

as do we both, I really don't need to make anymore arguments at this point either.  The points are made and its up to the gods, eitherway, I hope they figure out a way to make this more of a war game, and not a run away im dieing game.

[scrapking]

Salan, if you were correct about what can kill vet 3 units, for one, the ladder would never change, and it has, and does.  For two, I have far too many experiences killing off (and losing) high vet units  - in regular combat - to call it a fluke.  I did not exaggerate, I am not lying, I am relaying my experiences which number more than 1 or 2.  If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.  You do not always have the luxury of deciding to retreat at full health, and frankly, if you do, you are playing with a large handicap.

If you think that you are immune to it, then kudos for you, I'm happy for you.  You happen to be particularly careful with your units.  Maybe you should just delete all your vet after every game to compensate?

im not immune, far from it, I let my non broadsword company vet die over and over tbh. 

This isn't going to fly, for oh so many reasons.  No, my arguments haven't thwarted anything, because there is nothing to thwart.  Its like thwarting Ross Perot from being President.  But I do have influence, and this is a worthy cause.

as do we both, I really don't need to make anymore arguments at this point either.  The points are made and its up to the gods, eitherway, I hope they figure out a way to make this more of a war game, and not a run away im dieing game.

Let's get together later so you can explain this "retreating to victory" strategy that you imply there.

Or were you exaggerating? 

[salan]

hah, you don't WIN the fight by saving vet units, you win the fight by making your enemy save their vet units , or killing them if they don't retreat fast enough.


think of this though scrap.  If you couldn't retreat your units how much of the things that are wrong with this mod could be potentially changed?

yes it would break other areas (light vehicle spam for instance would need to be controlled), mcp bleed would NEED to be lessoned so people wouldn't be insanely pressured.  It would lead to a bit of a slower game play revolved around BEATING your opponent and killing them, which a lot of this crowd crave far more then RUSH/RETREAT/die to mcp.

Think of a blob of infantry running into a mg gun, oh no now you HAVE to diversify.  Armies like ampms would be a thing of the past, mp40 SPAM, riflemen SPAM, any SPAM, is instantly a death trap if it gets trapped rather then oh, try again next time.

you would HAVE to flank, use bait, and remove obsticals through actual tacticallness rather then brute force and sacrifising a small portion of a units health to clear the way, then retreat them to keep them alive.

imo the only reason they won't like something like this is because it might slow game play down for more of the catious players.  that is the reason you sense my acknowledgement of defeat, rather then that of victory, because I know who im panhandling to here.

Fldash in his pre-interview talked about wargames he had played in the past, I was in the room listening, and one of the ones myself commented to him was close combat series.  Fldash knows what I mean when I say a no retreat structure would change things, and I believe he can appreciate teh concept behind the suggestion, even if its not what they are looking for with eir, one way or another.

[Thtb-Ally]

Arugment:

Evryone woud want to keep there units and be super carefull. Only hmg + motar + jeep all the time :I

[Unkn0wn]

OR you could actually buff artillery again so that people actually have a chance to lose infantry to it instead of being crybabies about artillery killing full squads.

[salan]

OR you could actually buff artillery again so that people actually have a chance to lose infantry to it instead of being crybabies about artillery killing full squads.

that only effects the allies killing axis, doh!

Arugment:

Evryone woud want to keep there units and be super carefull. Only hmg + motar + jeep all the time :I

At first this is what i thought, but thinking more they will have spam control in 2.0 in squad buying, this will also control the amount of mgs/mortars we see, so again, really potentially not as much of a problem as we currently would have with .0.3.8 mg pricing...


who knows, maybe we'll atleast get an opinion on the idea eitherway, I try to think of things that could help, sometimes im wrong (assault nades being 20 ammo) , sometimes im right...

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

I agree with salan.

And scapking, the unit leader board only changes marginally, and most of those changes are units in, say, 4th overtaking the one in 3rd, you hardly see a unit wiped off the board.

also it would only slow down game play if some of the settings stay the same (MCP forcing rushes - lots of pressure on the players), and if players don't adjust - last page some one talked about running their weakened units into a HT then dropping them off in the spawn and picking up new units, if it only does one thing it could give a use to the unupgraded HT .

Anyway, there is not a whole lot of point arguing over something without testing it, it could work well your it could crash and burn.

so if possible i say run a trial.

[slowzo2]

Taking away the retreat function would not add to the game, it would take away from it.  Having to much micro in a game makes it not fun.  Having 3 or 4 one man squads running around trying to keep them alive would not make the game more fun, it would make it tedious and frustrating.  Just leave the design to FL, hes already proven that hes more than capable.

The mod started off with no retreat, and as I understand it, everyone rejoiced when it came out.  Why take a step backwards?

[Doce]

I don't like people saying that retreating vet units means you lose games. I think usually people retreat units if they know they're going to die. So if they're dead, or off-map, they still aren't in that game anymore. If my vet 1, vet 2, OR vet 3 riflemen run into a HMG and get pinned without hope of doing anything? My mortar and HMG teams are suddenly in the midst of 3 vet 3 Mp44's? Sure, get the shit out of there. Things happen that cause me to retreat units probably every game. Just because you retreat units doesn't mean you're a pussy, or babying them. If anything, the current retreat system ADDS to the tactics of the game. Do I retreat these guys and not have them the rest of the game, or keep them on, not knowing if they'll die, or be useless for the rest of the game? Sure there are people that retreat unnecessarily, but leave that decision to them to make, because that's just one more shrek squad my Sherman doesn't have to face.

[DerangedGerman]

Lovin 1a. Makes the most sense. Otherwise, units would never EVER gain vet.

[scrapking]

I agree with salan.

And scapking, the unit leader board only changes marginally, and most of those changes are units in, say, 4th overtaking the one in 3rd, you hardly see a unit wiped off the board.

also it would only slow down game play if some of the settings stay the same (MCP forcing rushes - lots of pressure on the players), and if players don't adjust - last page some one talked about running their weakened units into a HT then dropping them off in the spawn and picking up new units, if it only does one thing it could give a use to the unupgraded HT .

Anyway, there is not a whole lot of point arguing over something without testing it, it could work well your it could crash and burn.

so if possible i say run a trial.

You are only proving my point that pandering to people's ego's (or others who cry like women for changes to make xp deteriorate) around the leaderboard is pointless.  And by pointless, I mean stupid.

[Nevyen]

While I like the Premis I think we need to consider something here that’s seems to been missed by both sides.

Fun in a persistent vet model.

Let me qualify this, the mod and game is meant to be fun, what your asking for is an intense consequence based model penalising a gamer for a mistake in a very harsh manner.

While i can argue that for me personally I would love the idea, you need to maintain a broader perspective.  we have had an influx of players and will continue to with the current advertising that is going on.  If we up the ante in the game and penalise players in an extreme manner for micro mistakes early in their game experience, it will stand as a large turnoff not a turn on in the current environment.

We need player population and with that we do need some mechanisms that allow for players to survive some of their mistakes.  They will already suffer an immediate consequence via attrition from being forced to retreat. And if it happens consistently they will lose that game.  If though you implement what your suggesting you make the loss even harsher and establish a even more harsh regime of us and them in the vets vs noobs environment. Think noob bashing is bad now?  think about it if we implement this system. New player joins, micro skills not up to scratch?  owned for not the next 7 games more possibly the next 10-12 and a even more depressing state of I can't win feeling.

The consequence is to harsh for this system.  

BUT It would work though if we removed vertrancy gain as a persistent element.  Make companies static as in you have a running army list you use every battle, they die in game but you get them back for next game.  You can buy vetrancy but they are expensive  and vet gain in game is turned off. If you did that the approach to price based balancing becomes more effective in my mind. Rewards are based on rbs for buying units and upgrades and the like. But the company list does not vary from battle to battle based on events in game, it varies as players look to army lists  

The micro and tactics become the focus of the game not the conservation of vet player skill is no longer compensated but is key to winning.  Noobs and vets alike can have access to veteran units what becomes the distinction is how they are used and to what effect. The long you play possibly the more vets you can have access to but you have to balance that with attrition in game and balance the company with a good spread of games.  You buy gear for the units and slowly mould a company that matches you play style.

Most if not all Table top games systems run it this way, and it is also the way other MMO’s run it as well apart from eve as a stand out.  

A system like this would also mirror  the old league games for Close Combat. Player stats are based on games lost or won. And games where fun challenging and you felt like even when you lost you learnt something and the community was not so cut throat.  Then you can introduce this system but so long as vertrancy is persistant then what your asking for is to harsh and we will continue to be faced with these problems.

[DerangedGerman]

This goes completely against the goal of this mod. It would shaft the persistency.