Veterncy Experience should be a starting resource

[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

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

the same result as a good player without vet vs a bad player with vet....

[salan]

the same result as a good player without vet vs a bad player with vet....

its arguable to say that its the same result.  For instance, if I started last week and had a good teammate vrs 2 newer players who had SOME vet, which actually happened, we won, handily.

If i play till i am at 60 games and then play two new players who have maybe some vet 2's.. it won't even be a handily won victory, it never has in the past.   

The game learning curve revolves around knowing what to have on the field, and where to have it, and how to interpret and expect your enemies moves.  That is where the true difference comes in on this tactical strategy game.  its why people with no vet CAN beat the vetted if they don't pay attention.  go the other way around and there is potentially 0 hope that someone who doesn't understand that with no vet, can beat someone who does and has vet.

[UnLimiTeD]

AmPm, sorry if I'm offending you, but I consider your argumentataion primitive.
I don't even see you read my post.
This is, as you said, about COMPETITION.
It's not about who has more time.
And competition can ONLY, as salan said, form on equal chances.
So giving the better players even more bonus will lead to no one playing the better players anymore and vet whoring ( I argumentate this way because I think showing you your own advantage is the only way to convince you that I may have a point. I don't even dream of you agreeing with me.).

This won't be a nice gaming experience.

So to cut my last post short so you understand it better:
I want higher vet levels to be not only harder to achieve, but also less worth than lowers.
Vet doesnt fit stupid, but 2 equally skilled players fighting will most likely result in the player with more games win.
As you may know, you will still keep the low lvl bonus when you vet up, but gain additional advantages.
Those should be minor, and mostly on survival side.
---
Again, no offense, but if this post gets deleted, I atleast know it's beed read.

Addtional idea/hope : Choosing vet with advantages and disadvantages, giving rifles defensive vet will not only increase dogde by 30% and supression resistance by 10%, but also decrease damage and accuracy by 5% each.
Whatever....

@Ryu The result is the same, but the game is more frustrating for the noob.
We can't afford to lose players like this.

[HumanShieldNS]

the same result as a good player without vet vs a bad player with vet....

Except it is a blow out instead of being fun with their squads doing much more damage and being much tougher.

Vet should only have minor offense/defence bonuses it should increase usefulness and expand things horizontally instead. Units with vet could buy upgrades cheaper, get more uses with grenades, build things faster, get some non-important upgrades from other units (riflemen with demo charges), move a bit faster, get cloaking in cover etc... More versatile units instead of straight buffs.

It is bad enough with Axis limiting what you can buy based on vet, which means to try something out I have to grind through some battles half-heartily just to get the option to spend resources on it.

It is good to discourage suicide spam but fast retreating and quitting the battle to save vet isn't much better. The post about limited vet loss on death would limit the extremes.  

[Bodybag2224-Armor]

AMPM speaks the truth though. The majority of people want to do as little as possible and get the same results or better results then people that put time into something.

[Draygon]

Yea its like the majority of the population here in the states,they dont want to do anything, dont want to work hard for anything, yet expect everything to be given to them on a silver plater.  Im sorry shit doesnt work that way, you earn what you work for, you dont want to work hard, you get nothing, you work your ass off, you get rewarded for it.

Same thing applies to games.

[salan]

I agree with that, but should the persistence of vet be based on making your army better or denoting you lasted longer.. basicness of the argument I guess.

Vet MUST = something, it just sucks when it = everything

[UnLimiTeD5]

Are you telling me you have to work hard to even have a CHANCE of having fun.
Sice when is hard work fun?
I don't play this games to be on the leaderboards, but to have fun, and I sacrifice my vet if I can win a game through that.
If you play to be the best, don't expect advantages but your place in the leaderboard.
Is anyone actually willing to see both sides, not only your own?
I know a chinese might be willing to work double as much for half the money even if he lives a street away, yet there are people who are angry when their jobs are taken.
And you would be, aswell.
I won't agree with you if you compare a game with work.
Get Ants working again, then we may speak about fair awards for having more time.
Because you need it then.

Salan: QFT, always

[Bodybag2224-Armor]

Lets not turn this into a job debate, but basically this is a game with a learning curve, and it takes time to get good, so you will have to put in some work to get good. You get a new game and it takes some time to get good, same with EiR. And it isn't "hard work" you are simply playing a game that you may need to practice playing to get good at. How is it fair to have one person play 15 games and then meet up with a person who has 5 games and the exact same stuff

[HumanShieldNS]

Yea its like the majority of the population here in the states,they dont want to do anything, dont want to work hard for anything, yet expect everything to be given to them on a silver plater.  Im sorry shit doesnt work that way, you earn what you work for, you dont want to work hard, you get nothing, you work your ass off, you get rewarded for it.

Same thing applies to games.

Guess you enjoy MMORPGs. Repeating the same task needlessly is not work and doesn't take skill, it is following a carrot.

How is it fair to have one person play 15 games and then meet up with a person who has 5 games and the exact same stuff.

As fair as every game and sport ever made except the ones with persistance that gives you buffs based on timesinks.

[Bodybag2224-Armor]

Uhhh, what are you saying, I don't see how that relates at all.

[RikiRude5]

Im glad salan and unlimited see things the way I see them.

And to amppm, vet is easy to get? yeah maybe when you are such a good player that you win 75% of the games you play it's easy to get vet, but when you lose 75% of the games you play, it doesn't matter how good you are with your units you still lose vet. especially when you are going to win games people drop to crash the game (but that's a different thread).

Anyways, lets look at this. Me vs say Mountain Man, because I know he got tons of CPs in this war. He obviously had a lot of free time to play, while I didn't have so much. And I'm not even counting RBs in this demonstration, though counting them would only further prove my point.

At the start of the war, with fresh units and no vet. The game plays out well because even though he's better, the playing ground as equal. I'm positive MM would beat me, but it would be pretty fun. He's a great player, and I'm just mid level. This is with both of us fighting as total equals.

Lets go two weeks into the war when I have about 24 CPs and some vet. MM already has his T4s and plenty of vet 2. We fight, he is obviously going to win, not only with skill, but with T4, and vet.

Lets go a month into the war. I am getting close to my T4, and have some a single vet 3 unit, and some vet 2s. MM has had so many CPs that he's actually switched T4s, something I couldn't even dream of. Not to mention a hoard of vet 3. Who wins MM. for same reason as above.

Now lets look at it if EiR did some thing to balance things. So lets go back to two weeks. I have enough CPs to have a T4, I have a vet 3 unit, and some vet 2's. but you know what, it won't matter because I'll still get out played, but at least the battle will be a bit more even.


The point is something should be done to level the playing field a bit between people who can get 7 or 8 games in a day, and people who can only get 2 games in a day. What that should be, I don't exactly know, I do think taking a look at vet could help. Because at the end of the day, doesn't matter if the higher skilled players create a brand new account, they will still beat the mid level players.

EiR allows more skilled players to beat those with more vet. /cp and RB.
See i late-joined the war, very late actually. My states are 6 wins to 1 lose.

I am the same at 6-2 and i only joined last week. 

Stumpsters sig was correct "vet doesn't fix stupid".

but what happens when you have a GOOD player with the vet over a bad player with none?

Think about this.

Also are there more good players with vet, or more bad players with none? I'm guessing more bad players with none. Also when I see this...

Yea its like the majority of the population here in the states,they dont want to do anything, dont want to work hard for anything, yet expect everything to be given to them on a silver plater.  Im sorry shit doesnt work that way, you earn what you work for, you dont want to work hard, you get nothing, you work your ass off, you get rewarded for it.

Same thing applies to games.

Well sure, you guys worked hard to get your CPs and vet, but you are saying now that you have it, there should be no competition against you. With or without your vet you will beat a less skilled player. But with things set up how they are, it's EASIER for you to beat a less skilled player. And the guys at the top of the food chain are looking for an EASIER time to beat less skilled players. And believe me, most of these people at the top of the food chain rather play against less skilled players then to play their equals. Though I'm not speaking of anyone that is posting in this thread.

Anyways, people are saying because they have more free time to play the game they should have an easier time playing it. Rather then it always being fun for anyone who plays it.

I wonder what would happen if vet was just taken away (other then really messing up the defensive tree  )
All that would be left for less skilled players to debate about would be RBs, which, dont make a huge difference, since win or lose they would eventually catch up CP wise with better players.

[AmPmAllied]

Yea its like the majority of the population here in the states,they dont want to do anything, dont want to work hard for anything, yet expect everything to be given to them on a silver plater.  Im sorry shit doesnt work that way, you earn what you work for, you dont want to work hard, you get nothing, you work your ass off, you get rewarded for it.

Same thing applies to games.

Guess you enjoy MMORPGs. Repeating the same task needlessly is not work and doesn't take skill, it is following a carrot.

How is it fair to have one person play 15 games and then meet up with a person who has 5 games and the exact same stuff.

As fair as every game and sport ever made except the ones with persistance that gives you buffs based on timesinks.

Yea, god forbid we start comparing it to sports, where people that put the work in are much better than the people that don't. Put a professional athlete against a couch potato and see who wins, then ask why. Even other games work like this, a person that plays and studies chess for years will do better than some random guy off the street.

[PrydainII]

The GAME SHOULD FAVOR BETTER PLAYERS, thats the whole point of a competitive game. If you are good you do well, gain vet, get wins. If you suck, you don't win, you lose your vet, and you lose.

This is what is wrong with the world, people think they DESERVE an equal chance even if they are not as good. Everyone has the same tools available to them, the same starting armies, units, CPs, RBs. Some people play better naturally, some people bother to learn about the game to give them an edge. Then you have the people with no talent, and no will to actually learn and get better that want everything just handed to them.

Well put.

I don't care if I play against stacked teams all that much. I have started to care about who I play with though, when I first came back to EiR I thought I would not need to steer clear of the ultra-newbies because everyone deserves a chance to play but they are such god dam game wreckers that I can't do that any more. People need to learn, I myself have not played a game where I have been annihilated or called in all of my units, it always seems that I win or my team mates run out of units before I have wasted even half of my Company.

I do see retarded stuff like people charging into MGs or shooting with their snipers when they know there is an enemy sniper around. Thats the worst.

[AmPmAllied]

Exactly, some people do not want to learn from their mistakes, and they are the people I refuse to play with.

[novox6]

In my opinion, vet should be less of a game changing ability. Half all bonus's, and the game would be different. No more godly vet 3's running around eating through anything at all. This is speaking about infantry. I believe tank vet is perfectly fine. Nothing is required to change. Simply infantry vet needs to be modified. It affects the game far to much, and only encourages people to bash noobs. W/e you say, i don't care, you all do it from time to time. If there was a 3v3, with 3 pro allies, and a 3v3 with 3 noob allies. The pro axis would enter the noob one in rush's. Reason why? They dont want to loose vet. Why? because it affects the gameplay so much.

I wonder what would happen if vet was just taken away (other then really messing up the defensive tree  )
All that would be left for less skilled players to debate about would be RBs, which, dont make a huge difference, since win or lose they would eventually catch up CP wise with better players.

P.S. Wouldn't screw up defensive tree because Tenacious Faith is that good.


Summary : My opinion is half bonus's for all vet. Vet 3 KCH unsupressable? 50% supression reduction. Volks 30% bonus hp? 15% hp. Airborne 20% accuracy bonus? 10% accuracy bonus.  

Only vet that bothers people is vet infantry, since its so easy to keep and easy to get if you just stack teams and bash noobs. On the other hand, a tank is fairly difficult to keep and therefore it would be reasonable to see high effects on them.



Another way to solve this is by making retreating infantry receive NO EVASION bonus's. Keep speed there.

[HumanShieldNS]

Yea, god forbid we start comparing it to sports, where people that put the work in are much better than the people that don't. Put a professional athlete against a couch potato and see who wins, then ask why. Even other games work like this, a person that plays and studies chess for years will do better than some random guy off the street.

Read the post again. It isn't work or practice creating a skill advantage but time creating a point advantage. Sport teams that have been around don't start a game with a 3 point lead.  

I think it is weird that artifical bonuses are seen as the same thing as working to improve your skill at the game, backwards MMOG logic there. That the time requirement is part of being competitive in order to obtain stronger units, where as people that play chess a lot don't get to field more queens.

[UnLimiTeD]

Yea, god forbid we start comparing it to sports, where people that put the work in are much better than the people that don't. Put a professional athlete against a couch potato and see who wins, then ask why. Even other games work like this, a person that plays and studies chess for years will do better than some random guy off the street.

The way you are comparing it the better chess player gets addtional pawns that have a chance to dogde an attack and counterstrike.

Atleast TRY to get a somewhat intelligent argumentation.

HumansShields comparison is also nice.

[AmPmAllied]

The skill advantage quickly leads to a point advantage.

If I and a good teammate started brand new companies, would could beat high vet players with t4 abilities as long as they are not as good as we are.

Player skill is much more important than vet or tier abilities. Vet 3 Grens? BAR suppression, nades, done. I killed a KT with 1 Rifle squad, 1 M10 and an ATG in about 45 seconds or so in a game a while back. Its not hard to do.

Learn to play, work to get better, and the rewards become easy to get. And seriously, how terrible is it that you might want to look up a unit stat, or study a couple replays to see where you messed up.

[AmPmAllied]

Unlimited, grow a brain plz.

There are 2 discussions going on in this thread, one is about how vet is OP!!!, the other is about how players refuse to put the work in to get better. Skill leads to rewards.