Expensive Volks

[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

[Draken5]

the allied players do and we're the ones always losing.

I cannot agree...

[31stPzrGrenadier]

volks can build defenses without a doctrine ability, so your argument there is moot.

Volks build barbed wire and sandbags... true but I'm talking about building defences when used with doctrines. Read my arguments properly. Is there any doctrine ability that lets volks build tank traps? Personally, as useful as barbed wire and sand bags are at times... they don't stop tanks. And that is very useful in fighting against the allies. For the rifleman, tank traps can slow down heavy tanks or panthers and STOP stugs, pumas, PzIvs. Thats very very useful.

Also, the volks price isn't that expensive. 195? to the rifles 210? And then Your gren's are cheaper with one schrek than a ranger with 2 bazooka's and better? So please, should we raise the price of schreks and or grenadiers because a grenadier with a schrek is better than a ranger with its low hp and sorry gun when it doesn't have smg  upgrade and even then, I'll take a gren with a schrek and lmg over a ranger with smg upgrade.

Get yourself UPDATED. Rifles cost 200MP and NOT 210 MP. So whats so "inexpensive" when the two troops are only separated by 5 MP? Unless they have just reverted rifles to 210 MP recently than by all means I SINCERELY APOLOGISE.

Next, grenadiers do not compare to rangers. One is an upgraded basic infantry, another is elite infantry. Bazookas are meant for flanking and they deal good damage when flanking. Schrek is useful but it only hits at medium range. Long range is pot luck and either way, you need a lot of experience playing wehr to know the schrek's mechanics. So far, there has been no problem with the price of shreks or rangers. Rangers are used more for anti-infantry and they have fire up ability where as Grenadiers DO NOT have fire up. Gren with HMG and LMG do NOT COMPARE with ranger with SMG because, LMG is used statically where as SMG is used in an assaulting role. Add on the fire up ability you have units used for completely DIFFERENT ROLES. So poor comparison here.

Besides, if you think the pricing of grens vs rangers is unjustified, put up a post arguing it then.

the volks price was raised to 195 to counter the crazy spam we were seeing from certain people, it was just plain annoying to see volks after volks after volks and then have some of those same people use the assault exploit say "i bought it on one and forgot which one had it" so you use them all? BS.

Cost Effectiveness. If rifleman are more effective than airborne & ranger squads after the price reductions (think infantry doctrine) can we say that you should increase of the price rifleman because we have to counter the CRAZY RIFLESPAM we see, especially from triple infantry players? Not to mention the decrease in BAR pricing as well as INCREASE in munitions which allows stickies and nades and BARs.

It is just plain annoying as well to see tons and tons of rifleman with bars running around. This is not a valid argument simply because u see too much volks. Seeing so much rifleman is boring as well if u ask the axis players.

Face the fact of the economy. People will use whats cost effective. If something is too cost effective people will use it. If you nerf it to oblivion, people will not touch it and the volks ARE NERFED to oblivion. Grens are just so much better. The only reason why I have volks is to use them to reman weapons.

Assault exploit is a failure in programming by the coders. It is not a feature of the game. I dare say that most of us regular players here DO NOT abuse the assault exploit at all.

i'm not going to say that volks are as good as rifles, they aren't, which is why they're 195 and not 210 but they're used in almost the same capacity, cannon fodder that's why the price raise. I swear, the axis bitch more about stuff than the allied players do and we're the ones always losing.

The allied players lose because majority of the good players play on axis. There has been so many times that axis players switch over to play allies to conserve their insanely vet companies back when EiR was at 10000 manpower set up. The allies went from below 100 territory instantly to 300-400 territories. You're telling me this is possible with brand new companies?

Its all about skill. Just because a faction is losing doesn't mean its units are unbalanced.

In Conclusion
Personally I felt the volks didn't need a price increase because we still use grens for specific roles. We just normally use volks to fill in the gaps. However, if u want to increase the price, increase them slowly, like from 170 to 180MP or AT MOST 185MP. If you throw in a corresponding decrease in rifleman price as well you screw the whole balance over. Do cautious and moderate balancing if u want to save urself a world of headaches.

[fldash]

Wow... nice post 31stPzrGren.

[MysthalinBlitz]

Agreed to 31st on all points.

[Unkn0wn]

I'm glad he didn't bring in any realism arguements for a change :p.

[UnLimiTeD]

Damn, totally forgot rifle price decrease.
Ok, reduce volks price.

[Wildfire]

Meh. After just playing a game where volks got spammed at me, i can't really argue on 31st's post. Although nice and well written, Volks are still very effective and have as much or more health than riflemen. The price increase was put in to limit spamming which was very prevalent with volks, where people would just not even buy grens but have tons of volks cuz they were so cheap and give them all mp40's, it was no fun.

[Thtb]

Good thing no one ever expierenced that (mp volks being spammed)

[Wildfire]

Good thing no one ever expierenced that (mp volks being spammed)

o.O

[Unkn0wn]

I'm guessing you've never seen stumpster beat duvka and others with a volks + panzerfaust spam company back in the days? :p

[stumpster]

That was with Tenacious Faith though, so I don't know how effective that would be now. 

[Thtb]

Backthen volks where like 165 MP or?
Also its not volks + mp´s-
Yeah and Tenacious faith

[ThetaCommander]

Well, 195 MP is a bit too high, but 170 is also quite low. I'd recommend a compromise at 180 MP perhaps?

[Unkn0wn]

If we are keeping the current system (hope not but it's EIRRmod who will decide), 170 is not too bad, on the condition that riflemen get lowered to 180 - 185 tops.

[MysthalinBlitz]

Riflemen are already highly spammable together with support weapons and shermans.
I do not agree that rifleman cost should be taken down... 190 would be the lowest posible riflemen price, if the volks go down to 170.

[31stPzrGrenadier]

I do not agree that rifleman cost should be taken down... 190 would be the lowest posible riflemen price, if the volks go down to 170.

I agree similarly. However, I propose we take ratio and scaling.

Based on the example of volks @ 170 MP against Rifleman at 210 MP, the previous ratio of volks to rifleman is (Let 210=1)

1.2353 : 1, meaning you can have an estimated 20% more volks than rifleman.

Based on the new EiR values,

Volks @ 195MP and Rifleman at 200 MP, the ratio is now (let 200 = 1)

1.0256 : 1. This means that you have an estimated 2% more volks than rifleman.

I am sad to say but whoever suggested these values had not taken balancing into account
To put hings into perspective, For every 100 rifleman you will have about

OLD EiR Pricing: 120 volks
NEW EiR Pricing: 102 volks

Utilising midpoint method of calculation to estimate change in value ( x - y / [ (x+y) / 2 ] ) X 100%

It yields a value of est. 16.2% change in value. This is very drastic change. If we consider other options available in terms of price changes. I propose a price revision of the volks from 195MP to 180 MP leaving Rifleman pricing untouched.

Proposed Ratio of volks to rifleman = 1.111 : 1, estimated about 11% more volks than rifleman

OLD EiR Pricing: 120 volks
PROPOSED EiR Pricing: 111 Volks

This yields a value of 7.79% change in value, which would be a more moderate adjustment.

If we consider 170 MP of Volks with 190MP of Rifleman, this will be the ratio = 1.117 : 1

Technically this will yield very similar results as the above, REMEMBER THAT YOU CHANGE BOTH THE PRICING OF THE VOLKS AND RIFLEMAN. This will in turn, impact ALL OTHER units because Rifleman & Volks are now cheaper as a whole!!!

Bear in mind that we are adjusting the cost of each unit in comparison with its comparative unit on the other side as well as taking into consideration, its impact on the current supply available (8000 Manpower). I hope what I'm writing makes sense.

Additional Notes

If we consider 185 MP of Volks with 200 MP of Rifleman. the ratio is 1.081 : 1, naturally this means the end result will be different.

Est. midpoint value at 10.52%, which means that the 5MP in price makes a HUGE difference at 2.73%.

Intepreting the Results
The greater the midpoint value, the larger the disadvantage placed on the volks. So you can think about it as, the amount of % which you want to reduce the effectiveness of the volks in relation to the rifleman.

[Drakz]

riflemen which cost 200 manpower are way better than 195 manpower volks. Its not fair that they should cost so much, and riflemen can get bars, stickies ( which are way better than a faust, and can be used multiple times lol). A BAR > a mp40, and you cna still pick up other weapons on the field and use them with a bar squad, something you cant do with a volks squad. They are used for minor support and recrewing of weapons or picking them up, and it wont work as well when they cost as much as a riflemen which will pwn a volks unit any day.

[Unkn0wn]

Unit pricing is based on the unit's effectiveness in combat as a base unit, not based on what upgrades and/or doctrine abilities, etc could be applied to it.

The only reason riflemen originally costed significantly more than volksgrenadiers in EIR is because riflemen population was lowered from 6 to 5. This should always be kept in mind when discussing volks - rifle balance, although I will say that I've always though that even with this population 'fix' for riflemen, the cost discrepancy between both units was too high.

[Drakz]

what the hell, no , volks wont win up against riflemen on short or medium range, they have to be long range just so they can win.

[Drakz]

I do not agree that rifleman cost should be taken down... 190 would be the lowest posible riflemen price, if the volks go down to 170.

I agree similarly. However, I propose we take ratio and scaling.

Based on the example of volks @ 170 MP against Rifleman at 210 MP, the previous ratio of volks to rifleman is (Let 210=1)

1.2353 : 1, meaning you can have an estimated 20% more volks than rifleman.

Based on the new EiR values,

Volks @ 195MP and Rifleman at 200 MP, the ratio is now (let 200 = 1)

1.0256 : 1. This means that you have an estimated 2% more volks than rifleman.

I am sad to say but whoever suggested these values had not taken balancing into account
To put hings into perspective, For every 100 rifleman you will have about

OLD EiR Pricing: 120 volks
NEW EiR Pricing: 102 volks

Utilising midpoint method of calculation to estimate change in value ( x - y / [ (x+y) / 2 ] ) X 100%

It yields a value of est. 16.2% change in value. This is very drastic change. If we consider other options available in terms of price changes. I propose a price revision of the volks from 195MP to 180 MP leaving Rifleman pricing untouched.

Proposed Ratio of volks to rifleman = 1.111 : 1, estimated about 11% more volks than rifleman

OLD EiR Pricing: 120 volks
PROPOSED EiR Pricing: 111 Volks

This yields a value of 7.79% change in value, which would be a more moderate adjustment.

If we consider 170 MP of Volks with 190MP of Rifleman, this will be the ratio = 1.117 : 1

Technically this will yield very similar results as the above, REMEMBER THAT YOU CHANGE BOTH THE PRICING OF THE VOLKS AND RIFLEMAN. This will in turn, impact ALL OTHER units because Rifleman & Volks are now cheaper as a whole!!!

Bear in mind that we are adjusting the cost of each unit in comparison with its comparative unit on the other side as well as taking into consideration, its impact on the current supply available (8000 Manpower). I hope what I'm writing makes sense.

Additional Notes

If we consider 185 MP of Volks with 200 MP of Rifleman. the ratio is 1.081 : 1, naturally this means the end result will be different.

Est. midpoint value at 10.52%, which means that the 5MP in price makes a HUGE difference at 2.73%.

Intepreting the Results
The greater the midpoint value, the larger the disadvantage placed on the volks. So you can think about it as, the amount of % which you want to reduce the effectiveness of the volks in relation to the rifleman.

Listen to 31stPzrGrenadier , he knows his shit