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]

very well said dash, I contemplate its inpact and our responses to it originaly.

Firstly, the death of your units, is on your hands, and yours only, MOST of the time.  well you DID move them there, so you didn't see the goliath or demo charge, you STILL put them there, on the field.   you can accept the loss even if its through uncontrolled situations, more so.

But

if you lose vet company wide when you lose a game, how many of the new players would you play with?  Knowing you are going to lose?  how many of the GOOD players would you play against?  Knowing that to lose that fight you lose EVERYTHING, everywhere.

I don't think your original idea works even slightly.  Its hard to get games now, imagine if everytime we beat someone they lost across the board... no one would play any of the established members, and we would all be smurfing simply to play.

the units dieing in a war game is more localized and more controlable 'punishment' then a company wide slap.

[fldash]

When the rating system is implemented - it will affect unit experience gained in battle vs higher rated and lower rated players.  If it also affected experience lost based on the same factors, it would work.

[salan]

atleast with more dieing units vet would still be in the game, the ones that get out would keep what they had.  

if you lose a game and lost a 'harsh' amount of vet, sooner or later the amount of actual vet'd troops would dwindle catastrophically, or if you won constantly your vet would never get to play as everyone would avoid you like the plague except those who didn't know better.

Eitherway, any true change to vet be it actually dieing, or company wide loss, should probably take place after this war when we can start fresh... i just wish this war would end

[salan]

When the rating system is implement - it will affect unit experience gained in battle vs higher rated and lower rated players.  If it also affected experience lost based on the same factors, it would work.

if the lower end lost less by playing the higher end, this would work, but you also mean that higher end would lose more for fighting the lower end?  this is abusable by skilled players smurfing though... very abusable and would just need to be kept track of i guess.  (new companies are the bottom rung.. playing a brand new one vrs a mediocre company would result in a higher net loss for someone struggling to maintain their position, and result in a quicker gain for someone smurfing).

[CommanderNewbie]

I thought smurfing was going to be squashed in 2.0?

[Smithy17]

I think one thing which allows people to retreat vet units is that at the moment you rarely use all your company before the game ends. This means that you are not very likely to be out attritioned by your enemy in the time span of the game, allowing you to retreat units without losing out too much. If people regularly used their entire company I expect that retreating would be used less.

[salan]

I think one thing which allows people to retreat vet units is that at the moment you rarely use all your company before the game ends. This means that you are not very likely to be out attritioned by your enemy in the time span of the game, allowing you to retreat units without losing out too much. If people regularly used their entire company I expect that retreating would be used less.

it would definitely effect you more... I changed my company specifically because of this very 'feature'.  I am much much more undermanned then before but much more upgraded.  More punch for my buck... and still i don't use my whole company.

I thought smurfing was going to be squashed in 2.0?

dunno anything about 2.0 beyond rumors.

[Unkn0wn]

Bah, I thought you said veterancy gain would not be affected by rank, only CPs, RBs, and whatnot.
It's kind of silly if my units gain less veterancy when killing a weaker opponent's units with the same vet level.

Units should gain veterancy based on the opponent's units vet levels, not on the opponent's rating level.
You can have a 30% win percentage, be a crappy player and have just as many vet units as anyone else... This would end up giving a stronger player, likely with even less veterancy, LESS gains where as he's still facing strong or even superior units. This is really not going to help to promote the inclusion of newer players in this modification either as I can foresee a lot of powergamers no longer playing with the really new players and against the new players.

And while this may look like an ideal scenario, I know a lot of people would hate having to either sit around all day waiting for an evenly matched team or almost being forced into playing a game in which they'll completely crush their opponents (which is not ideal either) but get very little out of...  making it simply NOT worth the 60 minutes.
Some people just want to play & get something in return, I'm sure there's other ways of avoiding deliberate noobbashing.

Wether you like it or not, veterancy/CPS/Rbs are what keeps the majority of the people playing and forcing them to play games with little to no gains the majority of the time will quickly exhaust their desire to continue playing. This community is not large enough to make good teams only face good teams and there's a large skill discepancy between the top and the bottom player.

[Doce]

I don't see how removing retreat or making it less potent would make vet less important. It would make vet more important because it would be harder to get and therefore more valued.

[fldash]

The points you make have been discussed ad nauseam by Ucross and I.  There is no 'ideal' or perfect system.  Each system is going to have it's own faults and issues regarding the skill differentials, the size of the player base, etc...  When I refer to veterancy affected by the skill levels of your opponent, I'm not referring to in-game veterancy gains.

[Draygon]

I completely agree with Unknown, once a rating system is in, top tier players will basically sit around because they will have no one that wants to play against them, and will have no want to play in a lower rated game because they will get nothing out of it.

[CommanderNewbie]

I completely agree with Unknown, once a rating system is in, top tier players will basically sit around because they will have no one that wants to play against them, and will have no want to play in a lower rated game because they will get nothing out of it.

Lower tier players will want to play higher tier players to improve their companies, and higher tier players will want to play against lower tier companies to take/defend territories for their team.

You don't have to look very hard for reasons to play

[fldash]

Yes, they'll sit around all day, never earning any veterancy for their troops, or gaining anything toward medals, ribbons, and badges, etc...  That's their choice.  I'm fine with that, so long as they are.  Having unbalanced and stacked games isn't fun for either side.  So either the rewards and risks must be adjusted, or the matches should never take place.

Edit: Nice post CN.

[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.

But the funny thing is, and you are a good example of it, vet really should not mean so much.  I remember one match were you got 105ed and you lost one whole vet 3 unit and you "cried like a woman" as you put it, for so long in vent and really pushed for an arty nerf simply because you didn't think it was ok for someone to be able to alpha your unit.  So... it works both ways.

This is not meant to attack you personally, but since you are making strong accusations I thought I would point the finger a little in your direction.

Another example is when ever AmPm or Skunker lose a vet unit and want to leave the game, or they make me go hard of hearing because they are yelling at me in vent.

Now if vet didn't matter so much, we would see better matches IMO.

You're right, I am a good example of it.  My company has, at any given time, between 0 and 4 vet 3 units, another 3 - 10 at vet 2, and the remainder split between vet 0 and 1.  I have had exactly 2 units ever on the units leaderboard, and this does not bother me as much as it seems to bother some people around here.  To be honest, it does not bother me at all.   I use my vet units to win games whenever possible, and putting them at risk is a necessary part of that.   

I went over my argument about howitzers & arty in general already, and my only reply to you is please do not put words in my mouth, or construct a strawman argument around things I did not say, or things I said taken out of context.  Either address that whole issue in its entirety, separately from this, or don't bring it up, because it is not relevant.  And please don't piss on me and tell me its raining by saying "this isn't meant to be a personal attack", because saying it isn't one, doesn't make it not so.  I know you are smarter than that, give me enough credit that I would realize the obviousness of it.

A good portion of this argument, and some of its support is based around people not containing their envy of other players who are perceived to be camping the leaderboard, and that should not be respected as a reason for any change.  It was tried once with the womanly initiative to decay XP more aggressively for inactivity, which I can not respect, as opposed to punishing players for losing, which I can.

Because in the end, the game IS about winning and losing, not hoarding up piles of vet units.  But the persistent aspect IS heavily weighted around vet, rb, cp.  Take these away and you might as well just go play vanilla ladder.  If anything, I think we need to look at how we can add more persistent features to the mod, not take away or diminish in importance what relatively little we already have.  Which is exactly what removing retreat would do.

The game is won and lost by controlling more map than your opponent, heavily affected by convincing your opponent to retreat units, or if he is stubborn, removing them for him.  Place the thought in someone's head that this battle is not worth handicapping themselves for further battles, and you gain a strong edge.  Prevent that thought from ever entering your own, and it is a stronger edge.  Removing retreat would not only hit the persistency of this mod square in the figs, but it would also take away the subtle psychological dance that goes on in every game.

I have not seen a single solid argument that would demonstrate how exactly that games would be "better".  I have seen plenty about how the mod itself would suffer. 

[scrapking]

I completely agree with Unknown, once a rating system is in, top tier players will basically sit around because they will have no one that wants to play against them, and will have no want to play in a lower rated game because they will get nothing out of it.

Lower tier players will want to play higher tier players to improve their companies, and higher tier players will want to play against lower tier companies to take/defend territories for their team.

You don't have to look very hard for reasons to play

Bingo.  Seemed obvious to me.

[salan]

you also offer no concrete counter argument scrapking, and your influence shouldn't be bragged about, because none of our influence matters in the end eitherway, and we this isn't about waving our epeens.

I do hope you don't think my original idea was proposed due to envy though, if I was lumped in that, I would gladly state its wrong and exagerated on your part.

My original idea was a proposal to start a discussion a pon a point of the game that could use improvement from a logical standpoint.   Just wait till you play a game where they manage to pigeon hole you into a mcp death and you lose vet company wide because your partner couldn't hold his side of the map, you won't be happy then, either.

[Fulltimekiller]

if this happen how the heck i gonna get a game wait another hour or i should try  smurfing only ?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

if this is implemented i think units should be given one smoke nade to cover retreat .

[CommanderNewbie]

if this happen how the heck i gonna get a game wait another hour or i should try  smurfing only ?

Stop smurfing in the first place

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

if you want a game don't be a vet whore .