The Problems with EIRR as I see it

[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

[31stPzGren]

Effects of Veterancy, Offmaps

I see no difference between the EiR and EiRR. In fact EiRR is worse than the EiR because it did not provide PP scaling unlike EiR, where they would just give 50 CPs outright after a while. As a result players who actually have a life and don't play as often are unable to keep it with players who are able to play more than 3-5 games a week.

Considering that each game takes upwards of an hour to organise, join, and desyncs and what not.

Right now, with certain players having spent sufficient time on their armies, the sheer amount of advantages (MP, Muni & Fuel) they get, prevents other players from catching up at all. Combine this with excess PP sitting around after buying whatever they need, they simply spend on offmaps on tough games, and save it from easier games and they still have a net balance of PPs afterwards.

Veterancy still face the same old problem. True, its more painful to lose veterancy now, but by stacking matches selectively until you gain your vet 3s, its still not a problem to keep them alive. By the time you get your vet 3s, you're seasoned enough at keeping vet alive, and its no longer a problem to you.

See something stopping your entire advance? Don't risk vet, drop an offmap! See something an offmap can't kill? Send some vet 3s, they'll handle it. Think you'll meet a lot of tanks? Spend some PPS on munitions and spam schrecks.

Reinforcement Packages

The reinforcement packages is supposed to add "diversity" to the game. I think it simply gives excessive advantage to players. As multiple players have commented before me, combinations like Infantry Half Tracks w/ Pioneers + flamethrowers and wehr panzerschrecks deal devastating damage and are very efficient units. Rather, they could be underpriced.

Lack of tactical diversity, lack of options

I said it before, I will say it again. Availability is stupid and it kills the tactical diversity of the game. It is true that without this cap, it makes some 'gimmicky' builds highly possible. however, nerfing unit availability into oblivion is not the solution. Without being able to bring more of certain units, your tactical options are limited. I've believed and always advocated, that the way to control "spam" is to rely on the proper pricing of a unit and not availability. I think perhaps the pricing of the sniper has achieved a good mid way point.

The allied infantry doctrines is probably the worse hit among all these. Taking away the ability to build sandbags, barbedwire and tank traps prevents the allies from digging in and preventing an axis counter attack after securing positions.

Laying barbed wire is essential to prevent stormtroopers or snipers from sneaking in and forces them to use tanks to break the wire as pioneers are more rare. This allows the competent allied players to use anti tank guns and wait for the impending attack.

Closing

This is not to say EiRR is not without its good points, but I'm simply pointing out these fallacies. I'm more than happy to give suggestions to these issues, but it depends on how much is actually intended to be changed.

[31stPzGren]

Why I felt the PP controls didn't work as expected?

I find that while across the general population, it still works to a certain extend, limiting the amount of benefits you get to do. Players who play a large amount of games simply gets the better end of the deal. While these players invested more time into the game, I agree they should be rightfully rewarded.

In fact, they are already rewarded with; better micro skills, better understanding of the game, reputation (depending on whether they stacked or not), veteran units etc. Is there a real need to reward them further?

I've been playing fairly frequently and I noticed an interesting trend. Certain players will stack and noob bash, or take on easier opponents for as long as possible. Once obtaining the optimal amount of vet, doctrines, offmaps, they'll start to take on the more difficult opponents because by then, the odds are sufficiently stacked in their favour to win.

There were games when I find that the estimated loss the opponent took was greater than ours but because of the sheer amount of extra resources and offmaps they had, they manage to outlast us. This is coupled with the usage of off maps to make their lives a lot easier.

I remember in the early discussion of EiRR, the point was to try to reduce and mitigate the amount of "elitism" of sorts by implementing all these controls. Good in spirit but I guess it didn't turn out quite as expected. I find now, that the average player, whom I played against rather frequently, is more disarmed than the elite group of players who still benefited from the new system, ironically, perhaps even more.

[Nevyen]

Thank-You for your observations


One thing I will suggest PZ is that we have a coding and development actionplan that we are working through,  there are only so many hours in a day and further the team does have a real life to work with.

The reality is that all these issues have been noted already, and activly discussed on a regular basis.

It appreciative that you take the time to make these regular (this is what is wrong with the mod post)  but I think we are fully aware of your opinions that have be posted several times in several areas of the forums on numerous times.

I do value your perspective and have considered your opinions as well as EIRMOD has as well and we have used your previous posts on this subject as matter for discussion in several meetings.

I ask that you consider, that seeing as the current itteration of the mod is approximatly only 35% finished in overall design and implmentation we as a team also have a strict project management approach to assessing current issues.  You appreciate that repeating the same suggestion in several posts achieves only to repreat an already noted opinion.

We have structured and noted review periods as well as  version objectives to complete.   

Unlike FLdash's EIR, EIRR has a wider scope for the game and a deeper development timeline.  It does not stop at unit and doctrine implentation and includes the development of the game beyond the battle.

Suffice to say as I mentioned we have considered your opinions on the matter and thank-you for your input .

[chefarzt]

Which, translated means :Stfu.
Uggh sry couldnt resist.

[Unkn0wn]

Mind you, 'PP scaling' (new players in mid-late war being awarded PPs so they can compete) is slated to come back ASAP.

[Baine]

Mind you, 'PP scaling' (new players in mid-late war being awarded PPs so they can compete) is slated to come back ASAP.

Probably with the warmap, because that's what PzGren forgot. People got the 50 Cp because x number of days in the war were over. Atm we don't have a war, and people play without consequences.

[Piotrskivich]

What if instead of getting PP from the battles you fight you got and percent of a PP for every battle fought?

Maybe there could be some other way to have more PP than other people but it wouldn't be very large difference.

That way at the beginning of a war it would start out small and there would not be tigers all over the place yet but then by the end the armies would all be bigger and more advanced.

Then new people that didn't have time to play too much would still be able to match average players PP wise.

Just a thought.