CP gain modification

[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

[EscforrealityTLS]

Would it be possible to make the vet loss not start until a unit reaches vet 2? That way newer players with little vet are not effected, at all.

[EIRRMod]

A decision involving how Vet gain / loss has been resolved and will be available when we do the next update (Not balance modification, UPDATE)

E

[Unkn0wn]

Sigh, you people fail to understand that new people with very little vet get barely affected to begin with.
Vet loss is 10% per loss, PROCENT. (Vet gain is +6 FYI).

Some simple math to elaborate:
Newb Company: 1000 XP -> loss -> loses 100 XP
Pro vet Company: 10000 XP -> loses 1000 xp

If you effectively conserve your units, the vet loss as a new players will BARELY affect you and you will grow out to have just as vet as everyone else. Gaining vet is not something you need to be a good player for, gaining vet is something anyone can do. Anyone who plays a lot of games will normally gain vet, it is true however that the better players will be less hindered by the 10% xp loss than the worse players with a lot of vet.

This could for example be solved by scaling the xp loss based on the player's 'rank'. Better players will lose up to 10 - 15% upon a loss of a game, worse players could only lose up to 5 - 10%. Or even more simple, have no vet loss for the first 20 games, 5% for all games between 20 and 60, 10% for all games above 60.

What also need to be adressed is the veterancy discrepancy overall. This was going to be adressed with the ranking system as well. Make it so that playing against better players -> better bonus, playing against weaker players -> less vet bonus.

(Excellent changes btw :p)

[Tymathee]

What also need to be adressed is the veterancy discrepancy overall. This was going to be adressed with the ranking system as well. Make it so that playing against better players -> better bonus, playing against weaker players -> less vet bonus.

(Excellent changes btw :p)

Yea, but I think that might be tough to implement code wise. I really like that idea personally, and I've played games where that is the case and it makes game-play really fun for vets and new guys at the same time and kind of evens out the playing field.

Problem with that is, you'd have some new guys vet hunting just to screw the vets or some vets creating smurfs to knock down someone who's above them, but meh, can't police everything right?

[Killer344]

Damn... 3 minutes earlier and I would have onboard mechanics..., anyway nice change.

[Apex]

Huah! Good change.

[Gishank]

I personally think that 3 CP for both winning and loosing is a tad much. Perhaps 2 CP per loss, and 3 CP per win? Because that way, at least peple retain some bonus for actually winning rather than just a territory for their side.

[Schultz]

What unknown said. The arguments about taking away vet loss are really old, we are going circles again.
Taking away vet is not going to make a real difference to anything. The game needs more tweaking but more needs new systems, that end up in coding new stuff yeah, not taking away fondumental things that make the mod what it is.

I personally think that 3 CP for both winning and loosing is a tad much. Perhaps 2 CP per loss, and 3 CP per win? Because that way, at least peple retain some bonus for actually winning rather than just a territory for their side.

Yeah it makes no sense, for winning to be of the same equivalent with losing.
Its not the same thing as with the mechanism of attacking/defending that needs to change as soon as possible imo too.

Pls do not, with the excuse of protecting new players mess up with the system enough so that the core features get altered and changed.
If you go equating everything on the basis that noobs can be theoretically successful to this game, i dont agree to it.

We can make the mod more noob-friendly but on a competitive scaled basis.

A decision involving how Vet gain / loss has been resolved and will be available when we do the next update (Not balance modification, UPDATE)

E

Care to share it with us then dear E ?

[Thtb]

Awesome:

"Lets change fundamental things instead of balancing the game, witch would only require 10 mins of number changing!"

[Unkn0wn]

Yea, but I think that might be tough to implement code wise. I really like that idea personally, and I've played games where that is the case and it makes game-play really fun for vets and new guys at the same time and kind of evens out the playing field.

This was planned for 2.0, like I said. A big change however was that instead of gaining vet 75% ingame, 25% out of game (vet bonus for playing/winning a game) it was changed to a 25% ingame, 75% post-game set up. Something that I personally was not too fond of, as it's really a lot more interesting to gain your vet through fighting than just at the end of a game in the war CP. Only this way could you effectively control one's veterancy 'bonus' based on their opponents though.

Problem with that is, you'd have some new guys vet hunting just to screw the vets or some vets creating smurfs to knock down someone who's above them, but meh, can't police everything right?

The ranking system wasn't based on total veterancy amount at all, it was based on the amount of wins and the opponents you have won/lost against. So a good player who keeps fighting easy matches would not gain a lot of rank and the rank title/bonusses that came with it. And If he was already ranked good compared to his opponents, he would not get a lot of post-game xp out of it either. (Also affected CPS and RBs btw)

If you go equating everything on the basis that noobs can be theoretically successful to this game, i dont agree to it

You need to realise that giving equal CPs to bad/good players doesn't equalise the playing field at all, there's still the skill discrepancy which can and should not be taken away obviously. All this does is take away the CP discrepancy between bad and good players which made the playing field even LESS equal than it was when just being about skill.

Although I do agree that there needs to be more to winning, rather than just the leaderboards.
Hopefully the introduction of a 'rank' system with some additional rank bonusses, etc that was planned for 2.0 will still be implemented.

[Schultz]

If you go equating everything on the basis that noobs can be theoretically successful to this game, i dont agree to it

You need to realise that giving equal CPs to bad/good players doesn't equalise the playing field at all, there's still the skill discrepancy which can and should not be taken away obviously. All this does is take away the CP discrepancy between bad and good players which made the playing field even LESS equal than it was when just being about skill.

Although I do agree that there needs to be more to winning, rather than just the leaderboards.
Hopefully the introduction of a 'rank' system with some additional rank bonusses, etc that was planned for 2.0 will still be implemented.

I put equating Everything to show my worries as to the general climate "lets get rid of this and that" so that it becomes more noob-friendly.

As per the cps being equalized, no i dont agree with that being a fair system. Its more of a settelement to an already unfair system.

Having this for vet, "What also need to be adressed is the veterancy discrepancy overall. This was going to be adressed with the ranking system as well. Make it so that playing against better players -> better bonus, playing against weaker players -> less vet bonus." doenst mean you cant have it to dictate cps and rbs as well.

So if we are a community of stackers we get the least out of it, whereas the new guys the opposite.

[Unkn0wn]

So if we are a community of stackers we get the least out of it, whereas the new guys the opposite.

Play against somewhat more even teams if you want more vet gain. That was the theory behind it anyway .

[salan]

Awesome:

"Lets change fundamental things instead of balancing the game, witch would only require 10 mins of number changing!"

shush you.. this is a great change, something that should have been done a year and half ago.

I still don't think the balance is THAT far off.  Allies definitely have it a bit easier, but the level of player skill is also hugely divided, and all the new players are playing axis again.  Axis WILL lose this war, but that doesn't mean they need to nerf the allies.

I'm 10 - 1 for axis, its not impossible to win with them (and thats with a game with matrin even)

[Unkn0wn]

Needs more incentive to win though, players could theoretically "surrender" after 5 minutes and fast-gain their cps.
Hope it doesn't happen, but you never know with some people. :p

[Akranadas]

Such activity would be extremely easy to detect, and then even easier to punish.

[Thtb]

Hey guys, lets throw games and not tell akra.

k.

[salan]

Such activity would be extremely easy to detect, and then even easier to punish.

it is, its all logged.   if someones game was to last 5 mins constantly.. ya..

[Unkn0wn]

Or you could just not bother trying to win and make games are short as possible, just shooting the possibilities out there. :p  Either way, there's definately a need for additional incentives to win, not CP related. I.E Ucross' ranking system with 2.0 or stuff like that. 

[PPLAallied]

Great change

[Tymathee]