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

[PztKreiger]

Alright, so we need a concrete example of why this is bad?  When units are suppressed, they are slowed down, when they are pinned they are totally stopped dead for awhile before they are able to move again. 

This happening is completely unavoidable, whether to some players because their micro just isn't up to snuff, or because you just didn't have the pop cap to field a scouting unit, or that scouting unit got killed, or some other reason.  Now, this raises the question.

If my opponent can't retreat, should I kill those troops, or let them sit there crying and suppressed?  If they're not massive vet troops,  I should probably let them stay suppressed, because that means he can't field more troops.  If I kill them I'm just freeing up his pop cap.  Those units are crippled anyway, and the amount of time it would take him to triage their useless selves and get them back into combat is time where I'm capping territory and utilizing my units actively. 

Before people start to say "Oh this adds another dimension of strategy to the game" let's take a look at how ridiculous this concept is.  Keep units suppressed instead of killing them?  That pretty much defies the entire spirit of the game.  I'm pretty sure one of the objectives of these sorts of games is to cause losses, and I'm pretty sure this is counter-intuitive to that. 

Never should a situation arise in which not killing a unit is more beneficial than killing a unit, unless somehow not killing the unit results in killing MORE units (ambushes, cloaked units in the backfield, a pak gun not firing on infantry so it can wait for a tank, etc).  Suppressing a guy's units and not running in for the kill with your own infantry is not one of these situations.  This is just cause to slow the game down, and not exploitative of the 'no retreat' system, but rather the most beneficial use you could squeeze out of it. 

Suppression is always a bitch, but at least with retreat, I can get those (now) useless units off of the field, and get some new troops in their place.  If you implement a no-retreat system, then suppression becomes not only a deterrent (which it already is) but a borderline abusive mechanic. 

Furthermore, let's look at a tank with a destroyed engine and main gun.  Sure, blowing that up might give me a little veteran XP for the troop that killed it, but isn't gaining XP ridiculously easy for my troops now anyway, because we jacked it up so the no-retreat system could be implemented?  Forget that, I'll let him limp that destroyed engine no main gun tank all the way to the back line before I decide I even want to blow it up, because that's a crushing drain on his pop cap, and the XP it would give me isn't really worth it anyway. 

As it stands now, that experience is pretty damn useful, but as has been said, you'd want to adjust the amount required for each level if the no-retreat system came in.  Sure, I guess we could do away with that idea, but that's cutting your nose to spite your face; I don't think the overwhelming majority of the community would go for the no-retreat system if it didn't come with lower vet costs. 

Before someone says something to the extent of "Well in the end what you think doesn't matter" let's just stop saying that, because seriously, that's a two-way street, and why even debate it in the first place if whenever someone feels like they have no legit response they are going to say that?  Furthermore, it's simply not true.  If enough of a portion of the community hates a feature, that discontent will eventually cause attrition, and then stagnation, and I'm pretty sure most of us can agree that this is bad for any burgeoning community.

tl;dr: no-retreat bad!

[Fulltimekiller]

i'm not smurfing
but maybe i should


cozmo
i tried games with a brand  new axis company but because there are more axis game up my game is the last 1 they choose :/

[salan]

tanks were given a selfdestruct for a reason yep.  Hadn't thought about LEAVING enemy suppressed troops sitting there.

but guess what, they ARE taking damage when they are being suppressed and WILL die.   leaving an enemy tank with no engine and gun means you aren't actively damaging it, and it could conceivably sit there till the end of the game.

flawed in that logic sorry.

BUT the reason why units will always get supressed is that the mg in the house has longer sight range, meaning you don't see it before it sees you, and it fires before you can really get out of range.

[Eleven]

I say we give infantry a self-destruct as well.

[scrapking]

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.

Looking at the way this game has changed with this patch, and the bonus's to vet, aswell as the list of top 20 vet units and companies, it might be in europe in ruins benifit to look at changing the function of RETREAT.

People are not losing infantry units, on any real loss basis.  Myself by normal survival over many games I have 14-15 vet 3 rifleman in my max company.  Once you reach this point you fear very little in the means of infantry fights, mostly just hidden goliaths Sad.

Two options I forsee as improving this function of the game.

1: and probably most unlikely:  Remove retreat from infantry.

this would make it where you could walk them offmap, but you would have NO get out of town free card, aka tanks.  This would focus more on WINNING fights, rather then oh shit im saving my stuff from death.   Tactics would be needed, it would REMOVE blobbing effectively.  If you blob, mgs gain suppression bonus and your whole force is instantly threatened with death.  Flanking, omg!


The problem about this will be tanks and supression will be much much stronger if it was changed.
People will resist losses until it is common, the current version is almost like playing todays MMO's, you lose so little real units!


1a:  Vet 2 units get a retreat at normal walking speed, with no buffs.  Vet 3 units lose retreat completely.  <meaning people can GAIN vet to 2 easily enough, but harder to maintain it>

2: The other option I would propose would be to slow down the retreat speed, and remove their protection.  Retreat pathing is bad sometimes, and your troops are more likely to be lost due to this, so in a way, option 1 is a better proposal, but it is less hardcore for the bleeding hearts.


The reason I am proposing this is to help shift the game more into a tactical setting, give it more of a BUFF from Vcoh, and allow for recycling of vetrency and troop use.   Looking at the vet leaderboard is disheartening for even those ON the leaderboard, units NEED to die more.


THank you

OK, maybe envy was a charged word there, but the point is still the same.  The unit leaderboard is an incredibly poor reason to back changing the game system.  If you are not yourself emotionally attached to it, then you are playing upon others' emotional attachment to it.  Wrong coming or going.  The above boldfaced items are your words, not mine, and obviously they were said in that context or some purpose, no?  Which is it then, that you feel that way?  Or you are supposing that others do, and then using it to prove your point by appealing to emotion?  And we both know that on some base level, describing that emotion as envy would not be largely inaccurate.

I offer 2 concrete counter arguments to this:

1)  Veterancy is important, if not the most important, aspect of persistency currently in the mod.  removing retreat, for the explcit purpose of reducing overall veterancy would diminish persistency.  This is, a persistent mod.

2)  Without a valid reason to change, change for its own sake is pointless.

Furthermore, the above underlined portions of your initial argument are plainly either untrue, or simply your own personal opinion. 

Where are you getting your information from?  People are not losing Infantry?  If I assume that it is your own perception, well than my own perception tells me the exact opposite.  I both lose, and kill, as in utterly destroy, plenty of infantry units.  Low vet, high vet, all of the above.  Otherwise than personal perception, you're pulling something out of thin air and serving it as fact. 

Focus on winning fights or saving units is a choice of every player.  Forcing every other player to play according to your expectations of how a fight should be is hugely unfair.  You or I can still value the win over the vet, and play, and find results accordingly.  If another player would prefer to define success at the leaderboard, instead of W/L column, or faction territories, that is their option.

Blobbing.  Again, your own, (and perhaps a more widely agreed upon) opinion.  That you use the term, also a charged term, unfairly represents it as an invalid tactic.  It is in fact, still a tactic, and perhaps more of a real one than many others in this game.  Suggesting an alteration to the game system to remove a tactic that you, or anyone else, do not find as a valid one, is simply imposing your opinion upon others.

I won't be happy if my partner can't hold his side of the map, and I suffer MCP death?  What does that have to do with anything?  Your idea will save me from a poor teammate?  It replaces MCP?  It will make me play better?  That whole statement is filled with flaw, and does nothing but offer an unrealistic, intentionally unpleasant alternative to not going with your plan.  Which, by the by, is also completely irrelevent and untrue. 

Show me one single unbiased, unopinionated example of what about the way the game plays would be improved by removing retreat, and by result, veterancy.  (or if not removing, heavily diminishing its effects).  What does this offer to the persistent features of the mod?  How will this affect other game systems, for example MCP?  How will this affect balance decisions, past present and future?  How will this make anything better?  and by better, I mean better for everyone?  Where is the demand, or need, to go against inertia and drastically alter the way the game plays from our current perspective?

None of those question were answered in your first, or subsequent posts.  You can't create your own version of reality and then offer a solution to its' problems.  You have to be convincing that they are in fact problems first.  Then we can more accurately discuss if the solutions you offer are appropriate.

[salan]

1)  Veterancy is important, if not the most important, aspect of persistency currently in the mod.  removing retreat, for the explcit purpose of reducing overall veterancy would diminish persistency.  This is, a persistent mod.

2)  Without a valid reason to change, change for its own sake is pointless.

very true, and the rest is fluff compared to these points.  and maybe my true point is that vetrency shouldn't be the MAIN persistency in this mod?  thats ultimately what the underlying message is.

[PztKreiger]

"tanks were given a selfdestruct for a reason yep.  Hadn't thought about LEAVING enemy suppressed troops sitting there."

Isn't this just like retreating my vet 0 infantry off the field?  If they have to limp off the field, so should that tank.

"but guess what, they ARE taking damage when they are being suppressed and WILL die."

HMGs are significantly less accurate against suppressed and pinned targets.  Go check out coh-stats.com if you don't believe that one, because it's a stone cold fact.  So those suppressed troops can stay there for a damn long time doing nothing but crying and trying to crawl away.  They will eventually die...  About 10 minutes later.

"leaving an enemy tank with no engine and gun means you aren't actively damaging it, and it could conceivably sit there till the end of the game.

flawed in that logic sorry."

I don't even know what the antecedent to this is, I never said I was actively damaging it, I said I was leaving it alive so it sucked up pop cap, so flawed reading on your part, sorry.

And the reason why units always get suppressed is variable.  If you have a scout unit you can see the MG and won't run into it, if you have a vehicle you can juke him in and out to take a shot of MG fire and act as a scout to tell you the MG is there.  The times you get suppressed are when you don't have any of these things, or when you click "go here" and look away real fast to macro/micro something, and look back to see your troops are getting MG'ed.

[salan]

1

[PztKreiger]

"actually you sir are wrong

in order to suppress something you MUST be shooting at it, which means even if its less damage, you are damaging it, and it means it WILL die."

Did you just quote my response to your quote about tanks, and try to apply it"leaving an enemy tank with no engine and gun means you aren't actively damaging it, and it could conceivably sit there till the end of the game.  Re-read my post.  Actively damaging was talking about tanks.

And saying something WILL die is horrifically flawed logic.  Yeah, okay, it may die 10-15 minutes later, but again, cutting your nose to spite your face.  Admission to slowing the game down, in order to disprove that units don't die?  I don't think you want to do that.

[salan]

I just realized i quoted the wrong segment, was editing it out hahah

you win that one on comprehension!

[PztKreiger]

Haha, yeah, getting into a debate with me on semantics and reading comprehension is a poor choice.  Never found an English standardized test I didn't get a perfect score on. =P

[Thtb-Ally]

And thats very sad imo.

[fldash]

Thtb, it's sad you've apparently never taken one! :-I

[PztKreiger]

facts is facts, they don't care about your non-binary emotions!

[DasNoob]

The evny argument over the leader board cannot also be applied to myself since I have at will wipped my company 2 times this war.  I'm here to play test the Alpha and have fun.  I support Salan's idea because the more we test now the better for Beta and beyond.

People are playing this mod like it is a finished work.  Everyone gets excited about every single change, and their standing.

Honestly we are all play testers here frist!

[scrapking]

1)  Veterancy is important, if not the most important, aspect of persistency currently in the mod.  removing retreat, for the explcit purpose of reducing overall veterancy would diminish persistency.  This is, a persistent mod.

2)  Without a valid reason to change, change for its own sake is pointless.

very true, and the rest is fluff compared to these points.  and maybe my true point is that vetrency shouldn't be the MAIN persistency in this mod?  thats ultimately what the underlying message is.

That argument I can go along with, even if I don't personally agree.  Mostly from the position of what then to replace it with?  If our companies are nothing but high turnover, we become alot closer to vanilla, minus macro managing the economy.

What makes your company the focal point of persistency, if not vet, CP, and RB (and probably in that order)?  What makes your company, "yours"?  We can focus persistency around nothing but the war, but then players may be detached from their own contributions from a personal, selfish level.  I would argue that in the end, people often play for things which record their personal accomplishments, their "score", in any persistent / MMO type game.  Look at the City of Heroes series compared to WoW.  I would argue that the major difference between the 2 games is that WoW has item-lust in a way thet CoH never did.  Item-lust is a huge part of persistency in WoW.  There needs to be something to fill that need.  EiR's "item lust" is currently vet.  If not vet, then something else.  Relying on anonymous altruism as a motivational tool in a game, or in life, had many failings, the root of which being the individual's base desire to be an individual.  But that is another discussion.


And the other "fluff" was nothing but pointing out weaknesses in your own initial arguments. 

[scrapking]

The evny argument over the leader board cannot also be applied to myself since I have at will wipped my company 2 times this war.  I'm here to play test the Alpha and have fun.  I support Salan's idea because the more we test now the better for Beta and beyond.

People are playing this mod like it is a finished work.  Everyone gets excited about every single change, and their standing.

Honestly we are all play testers here frist!

And outside of supporting the OP idea, I totally agree with you.  In every way, other than drawing conclusions for the sake of this entire discussion.  But yet as I pointed out, either OP has envy, or he is intentionally using the envy of others to support his argument.  Knowing Salan, I believe it to be the latter, but its still a valid argument on my part, whether or not it applies to you (and I never said it did, and I fully know that it doesn't).

I recognize that for some of you, its part bloodlust, part wanting to ramp up the level of action and carnage.  I can respect that, but I think it is bad for the mod overall, for the reasons I have already stated.

[salan]

ENVY
1: painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage

I wouldn't say I have any envy of anyone else in this game...



note that the vet 0s are all support weapons and vehicles that die a lot more...

[CommanderNewbie]

Admit it, you envy me.

[Lolto]

ENVY
1: painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage

I wouldn't say I have any envy of anyone else in this game...



note that the vet 0s are all support weapons and vehicles that die a lot more...

I demand an immediate nerf! OP! OP! OP!