Developer's Question #1

[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

[RikiRude]

I know the panther is a heavy tank, but would it make sense that a panthers vet cost be the same as a tigers? i guess maybe since the panther has so much speed over the tiger. Agreed panther should be with the pershing and tiger class tanks, i just wasn't sure if people would agree to pay the same pp cost as these other units, apparently i was wrong 


Also I guess I forgot to mention, that with the vet PP costs I have in mind, I assume that the amount of PPs that would be given out might be higher then simply 3 per game. also I did not know that vet no the heavier tanks already costs more then normal units, if i read you correctly, so you are right i had no idea what i was talking about. 

But i like how the PP costs i use scales up, it appears i just have to increase the costs of PP compared to what i currently have listed.

[EscforrealityTLS]

I'm personally of the opinion that the PP system might work a little better if the amount aquired per game and cost of PP purchasable items was to raise by a factor of 10.

This would give the Devs a lot more flexibility when deciding PP costs.


Edit: Removed off topic.

[Malevolence]

I'm personally of the opinion that the PP system might work a little better if the amount aquired per game and cost of PP purchasable items was to raise by a factor of 10.

This would give the Devs a lot more flexibility when deciding PP costs.

This is true, larger numbers all around can result in a bigger variety of costs.

For instance, if you get 3 PPs per game, everything costs 0 through 9 PPs to buy. That's not a lot of available choices (ten choices for PP "level" of cost).

Whereas if you get 30 PPs per game, and everything costs between 0 and 99 PPs to buy, that's a LOT of different price levels that can be set by the devs. It's basically a way of incrementing fractional PPs but in a more practical way. (one hundred different "levels" of PP spending as opposed to the ten from before).

[EIRRMod]

Again, PP is scaled to the phase of Beta we are in.

It will be increased. (NOT, by a scale of 10, are you insane? lol)

[EscforrealityTLS]

So adding a zero to every PP number you have now isn't challenging enough for you 

[Unkn0wn]

I think Escforreality also meant that the cost of PPs would be scaled with factor 10. (Not just the PP gains)

[SaintPauli]

We would like you to write out your thoughts on the current PP veterancy system.
Should the PP cost on vet levels be lifted on some units? Which units do you think should still cost PPs, at which levels should you still have to pay PPs, how much should you have to pay, etc.

The problem with paying for veterancy is that it undermines the “persistency feeling” of EiR. (surviving unit gain experience and losing units affect you). Spending PPs on veterancy feels more like a strategic decision. It was not until I unlocked all doctrine abilities, recourses and reinforcements (around 40 games) that I got back the feeling of persistency. 

I think we should make veterancy free again but have it count towards you in terms of the other team getting noob advantages.

    

[gamesguy2]

The current system is fine.  It just needs a few minor adjustments.   Units without weapons need a way to vet up, and light units like bikes should be free to vet, maybe 1 pp for vet 3 and thats it.

Light vehicles in general needs to be cheaper to vet compared to infantry which can retreat and heavier tanks which won't die to two AT gun hits.

[31stPzGren]

I personally think the PP system for veterancy is a bad idea. I would still advocate an old opinion I held and always believed in;

Veterancy should be easily obtained with helpful but non-game breaking benefits.

Why take away PP from Veterancy and make it easily obtainable?
This helps to discourage vet whoring and overly vetted armies gainly an unfair advantage. While the most hardcore vet whores will still have full armies of vet 2s & 3s, at least the disadvantage is not as large.

When you make vet easily obtainable, people are more willing to sacrifice units, making gameplay more dynamic instead of static, vet-saving decisions. This also reduces the amount of impact "instant kill" weapons have on the gameplay.

This will also reduce the whole need to "balance" veterancy and its respective PP costs. Players should win games because of good strategy and teamwork, not because of vetted armies which can take all comers.

There was once which I resorted to taking an Air Superiority allied company with not a single AB but 4 snipers, just to eliminate Vet 3 Grenadiers w/ LMG42 + Schreck. It was extremely nerve wrecking for the opponent but it will be just as equally unpleasant to be slinging your own army worthlessly at the opponent's army.

This still gives exclusiveness of keeping an absolutely vetted army, but nowhere the amount of silliness involved previously in fighting one.

Vet Scaling
You can use this as a gauge for infantry (volks/rifles/PG/tommies)
Vet 1 - 10 Exp, Vet 2 - 20 Exp, Vet 3 - 40 Exp
or this one if the previous is too low.
Vet 1 - 15 Exp, Vet 2 - 30 Exp, Vet 3 - 60 Exp

Play around with the figures a little.

Vet Benefits
Bonus should usually improve traits by small amounts like
5-10% to areas such as;
Movement Speed, Accuracy, Reducing Incoming Accuracy, Reduce Damage Received, Increased Damage output, Health, Dealing Suppression, Receiving Suppression etc.

I should think the above traits should be a single one time bonus. Differentiate between more "powerful" traits and weaker traits.
A preventive trait is always worth more than a mitigating trait.

Ideas for Balancing Traits
Compare "Reduced Incoming Accuracy" vs "Reduced damage taken". In reducing incoming accuracy by 5%, there is a chance of avoiding damage totally where as reducing damage taken does not remove damage totally.

Depending on the medium of damage dealing, the 5% reduction in incoming accuracy can have a higher expected value of damage mitigation than damage reduction in practical application as compared to theoretical calculation.

In Conclusion
Some ideas are great in theory but not very good in application. It is better to move on and try new things at times.

[bfhogues]

I love the new system right now with EIR  R.
the pps for vet makes those vet whorey bastards pay for their sins. it also keeps them retreating their precious pets allowing actual players to win games.

pps for vet make you spend wisely on what is an expendable unit vs what is mission critical. as killer pointed out, vet one is FREE.
this keeps people from just constantly fielding a superuberpwnyou army time and again with no cost sunk in except time(time spent sheperding their flock)
this game is about war and units die in war, get used to it, ppl should not cry over losing precious pp into some unit they were expecting to live forever.

remember...there can only be one

[31stPzGren]

It doesn´t matter, you can´t balance it based on smurfers/stackers.

I personally think that;

1. Stick to this current method, and you'll always have your problems of proper balancing and PP concerns etc.

2. Rework the system and take out some of these problems.

There are some designs/balances I can see right now which are all due to stackers/smurfers. Your statement is just odd.

[BigDick]

why not making vet pp costs depending on the amount of pp a company gained?

right now it is much better to get doctrine abilities and advantages first...maybe than reinforcements and at las the vet

why not raising pp costs to vet up when a company gained more and more pp (or spend more and more PP) to give new people a boost and make pet owner pay when they want to get more and more vet in their companies

dynamic PP costs for vetting up

[VariantThirteen]

Last war, there were problems with certain companies being overvetted, but those problems were really just superficial, the real problem, almost without exception was Oversupply and abuse of cost reducing dynamics.

I don't like the system as it stands because it doesn't reflect how veterency works in relation to prestige in real life - a commander gains prestige from the units under his command being veterans, and his successes. not vice versa. Mind you, buying vet units outright should be possible but cost loads of prestige.

Prestige and vet should be related, but vet should probably be an indirect PP modifier, not a simple cost. For example, each vet unit involved in a victory could generate some PP, while each one involved in a loss should detract from your Prestige. PP and the war should also be related, and not matchups should generate the same PP.

Numerous problems exist with PP vetting at the moment, and I don't think scaling the prices will help them. Others have elaborated on them already.

[Schultz]

I think the devs appear themselves confused to what they wanna do with this one.
They want to prevent stacking, and yet they want our hard-earned pps to be worth the investment, thus we get vet that is worth it. I dont understand how they will do this.
Vet whoring, stacking are still here, and nowhere to be gone. And who among this mod, will sacrifice his vet 3 to win a game ?

So, im too against this system, i never undestand why do you have to tie pps to vet, when you make vet to be so important. I think there are other ways to do that.

PPs tied to vet in this way suck the immersion out of the game. Like variant and saintpauli said, it just isnt the same when you pay for something that in reality you earned it in combat. The problem with old eir is that vet was all there was. Uber vet made certain units unkillable, and that was the mistake, not the actual system of gaining vet. But apart from that i loved old Eir in this department.

Now i respect what lucifer coded so far, but i think this whole pp system needs to be reworked so we can have for one the feeling of real progress back in the mod.

[AmPM]

Agree.

Paying for something you already earned by keeping the unit alive and getting kills with it is silly. Its also the least useful thing to pay for and the ONLY thing you can lose.

The PP system in general needs more variability as well if it is to work. Adding a zero on to the costs and earnings would allow that. And no, it has nothing to do with liking large numbers, it has everything to do with larger numbers allowing more variance in costs and earnings. It allows much finer balance control.

[Mgallun74]

i dont know what to think of this PP stuff...

1.  I have all advanatages needed, 3 tier 1s, 2 tier 2s, 1 tier 3.
2.  I have my Doctire choice as well.

thats alot of PP, i have had some vet 3 units, but i just go out and fight and get killed so i lose them..  had 1 Rangers squads to 145xp that was murdered by 1 nice hummel shot lol.    had 1 Vet 3 88 xp 57mm that was killed after i lost connection to the game and it was on field, guess it got killed..  i have had numerous vet 3 howis that always get killed, i never really protect them.  

so now i have like 20pp just sitting there, with nothing to spend it on.. so ya.. ok?

[CafeMilani]

increase the minimum xp for vet2 and vet3, thats the solution of the problem

[Killer344]

Vet whoring, stacking are still here, and nowhere to be gone. And who among this mod, will sacrifice his vet 3 to win a game ?

Some days ago I had to sacrifice 2 vet 3 ACs, and 2 vet 2 falljs to win a 3vs1, I´d do it again.



Veterancy is just a gimmick.

[Mgallun74]

Vet whoring, stacking are still here, and nowhere to be gone. And who among this mod, will sacrifice his vet 3 to win a game ?

Some days ago I had to sacrifice 2 vet 3 ACs, and 2 vet 2 falljs to win a 3vs1, I´d do it again.



Veterancy is just a gimmick.

shoot, i have put any of my vetted units in the middle of a battle and let them fight to the end.. screw it.. thats why most of time i will have a really high death count.

[Malevolence]

Vet units are normal units who are better at their job. I retreat all of my units roughly similarly except for vet 0 ones I can just repurchase (yeah whatever cromwell, take your gunless ass and go squish some guys, you have no XP anyway).