You are incentivized to lose

[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

[gamesguy2]

There is absolutely no reason to try and win games right now, infact winning is worse than losing.

If you play to win:

1. If you win, you rank up faster, but you cannot afford the new unlocks due to the lack of PP.

2. If you win, you rank up faster, and you gain less PP for playing, compounding with #1.

3. If you win, you have to take more risks with your units and therefore lose more vet.   Vet that you cannot afford to lose due to the lack of PP.  Compounding with #1 and #2.


If you play to gain vet/lose:

1. If you lose, you rank up slower, so you will have the pp to buy everything you unlock.

2. If you lose, you rank up slower, so you will gain more pp playing against people with a high win/loss ratio and therefore high rank.

3. If you lose, you have lots of vet due to retreating all your vet at 3 man and never losing them.

4. If you lose, you have a ton of PP and vet but the same rank as someone(who wins a lot) with half your PP and vet, so you have a huge advantage every game.


So whats the point of winning?  I should just grind vet every game and forget about trying to win.


The current system encourages people who play to vet and nothing else.

Its simple, you setup your company to vet rather than to win.

1. You strip out all the support weapons except artillery.  Because those die easy and don't survive even if they vet.
2. You strip out all the easilly destroyed light vehicles like HTs.
3. You buy only elite or heavy infantry like KCH, grenadiers, rangers, commandos.
4. You play like a pansy with your tanks.  Pretend every sherman is a tiger ace and take no risks.

This kind of a company is very easy to vet, it won't win very often, but whats the point of winning?  And eventually you will have so much vet you can overwhelm companies with less vet/pp with your vet 3 army and pps growing out of the ass.

This kind of a company is unpleasant to play with on your team.  If your teammates want to win, its very annoying to have someone with a company who babies every unit, has no support weapons or light vehicles, and generally contribute very little to the team game.

So why bother trying to win?  We should just all build an army of KCH and commandos and play who has the most xp on the leaderboard.

[Larslolapa]

I play EIRR because its fun.

Winning is much fun, losing is not fun.

Therefore I play to win.

Also, the system is made to make it easier for new/bad players, DUCY?

[jackmccrack]

1. If you win, you rank up faster, but you cannot afford the new unlocks due to the lack of PP.

2. If you win, you rank up faster, and you gain less PP for playing, compounding with #1.

3. If you win, you have to take more risks with your units and therefore lose more vet.   Vet that you cannot afford to lose due to the lack of PP.  Compounding with #1 and #2.

1. Stop spending PP?

2. You gain less PP only for playing lower level players.

3. You don't have to vet your units.

I'm rank 3 with 3 resource advantages, one doctrine ability, vet units, and 41 PP. Follow my lead.

[Malevolence]

It's kind of true, the game doesn't properly reward winning.

Should remove XP penalty for facing low level players, leave the rest the same. That should fix it imo.

BTW jack - what you're saying is that even though you won, you're doing fine, but you are doing roughly as well as you would be if you had lost all those games is the point he's making. There's no real incentive to win, but there is a good job preventing being "stomped" from resulting in a dead company with no results.

[gamesguy2]

1. Stop spending PP?

2. You gain less PP only for playing lower level players.

3. You don't have to vet your units.

I'm rank 3 with 3 resource advantages, one doctrine ability, vet units, and 41 PP. Follow my lead.

1. Whats the point of PP if you dont spend it on unlocks.

2. And you will be playing lower ranked players because the vast majority of players are rank 1 or 2.

3. You don't have to unlock any doctrine abilities either, whats your point?

There are rank 2 players with 4 doctrine abilities 3 resource advantage, and more vet than you got.   If you had lost all those games, you would be gaining more PP every battle, and you will still have the 3 resource advantages, the 41 pp, the vet, and the doctrine ability.

So whats the point of trying to win?

You can build your company to vet rather than win.   For example, removing all MGs, all light vehicles, and just focus on units that can vet and keep vet, like elite infantry and heavy tanks.

[Latios418]

I agree with everything in your post except

so you have a huge advantage every game.

What's the point of having a huge vet advantage if you're playing to lose anyways? However, I am tempted by this new rank system to play for vet, as that's a lot of fun already.

1. Stop spending PP?

2. You gain less PP only for playing lower level players.

3. You don't have to vet your units.

I'm rank 3 with 3 resource advantages, one doctrine ability, vet units, and 41 PP. Follow my lead.

1. How does that affect ANYTHING? You still won't have enough PPs for everything.

2. And if you're higher ranked, you'll play lower level players more often.

3. Isn't that one of the major appeals and the biggest advertising point of EiRR (persistency)?

[jackmccrack]

1. Whats the point of PP if you dont spend it on unlocks.

2. And you will be playing lower ranked players because the vast majority of players are rank 1 or 2.

3. You don't have to unlock any doctrine abilities either, whats your point?

1. Got money in the bank? I do.

2. No I won't.

3. My point is that points earned do not have to be spent.

[Latios418]

Should remove XP penalty for facing low level players,

It's not the xp that matters, it's the PP that does. I can live with leveling up slower if it meant that I didn't get stuck with <50% of normal pp games for 90% of my matches.

[gamesguy2]

1. Whats the point of PP if you dont spend it on unlocks.

2. And you will be playing lower ranked players because the vast majority of players are rank 1 or 2.

3. You don't have to unlock any doctrine abilities either, whats your point?

1. Got money in the bank? I do.

2. No I won't.

3. My point is that points earned do not have to be spent.

Because you can't save up PP while you're playing to vet and losing right?

[Akranadas]

Saving up PP so you can purchase Doctrine abilities as soon as you reach that rank.

The rank and reward system will be skewed at the start of the war due to people who play more might feel they are being ''punished'' but after a week or so, it'll even out as casual players reach above rank 1 and 2.

[jackmccrack]

Because you can't save up PP while you're playing to vet and losing right?

You CAN save PP while playing to vet and lose.

[gamesguy2]

Saving up PP so you can purchase Doctrine abilities as soon as you reach that rank.

The rank and reward system will be skewed at the start of the war due to people who play more might feel they are being ''punished'' but after a week or so, it'll even out as casual players reach above rank 1 and 2.

No, someone who plays to vet and loses a lot can save up PP, because he can actually afford all his unlocks.

No, it rewards people who play a ton and loses a ton. It punishes people who plays half as much but wins nearly every game.

[gamesguy2]

Because you can't save up PP while you're playing to vet and losing right?

You CAN save PP while playing to vet and lose.

So whats the point of trying to win?

[Latios418]

But if you save PP to unlock higher tier abilities, then you don't have PP for lower tier abilities.

The only thing that makes me hesitate on making a vet account is the fact it's a team-based game. If some other people made vet accounts and we would only play for vet with each other so as to not piss other people off, I could enjoy that. But griefing teammates for my own personal gain makes me feel really guilty...

[jackmccrack]

Because you can't save up PP while you're playing to vet and losing right?

You CAN save PP while playing to vet and lose.

So whats the point of trying to win?

The gamesguy I know loves to play and loves to win. Who are you?

[Latios418]

Somebody who realizes the new system penalizes you for winning?

[gamesguy2]

The current system encourages people who play to vet and nothing else.

Its simple, you setup your company to vet rather than to win.

1. You strip out all the support weapons except artillery.  Because those die easy and don't survive even if they vet.
2. You strip out all the easilly destroyed light vehicles like HTs.
3. You buy only elite or heavy infantry like KCH, grenadiers, rangers, commandos.
4. You play like a pansy with your tanks.  Pretend every sherman is a tiger ace and take no risks.

This kind of a company is very easy to vet, it won't win very often, but whats the point of winning?  And eventually you will have so much vet you can overwhelm companies with less vet/pp with your vet 3 army and pps growing out of the ass.

This kind of a company is unpleasant to play with on your team.  If your teammates want to win, its very annoying to have someone with a company who babies every unit, has no support weapons or light vehicles, and generally contribute very little to the team game.

[jackmccrack]

Somebody who realizes the new system penalizes you for winning?

It doesn't PENALIZE you for winning.

[jackmccrack]

This kind of a company is very easy to vet, it won't win very often, but whats the point of winning?  And eventually you will have so much vet you can overwhelm companies with less vet/pp with your vet 3 army and pps growing out of the ass.

This kind of a company is unpleasant to play with on your team.  If your teammates want to win, its very annoying to have someone with a company who babies every unit, has no support weapons or light vehicles, and generally contribute very little to the team game.

It's all about reputation.

[gamesguy2]

This kind of a company is very easy to vet, it won't win very often, but whats the point of winning?  And eventually you will have so much vet you can overwhelm companies with less vet/pp with your vet 3 army and pps growing out of the ass.

This kind of a company is unpleasant to play with on your team.  If your teammates want to win, its very annoying to have someone with a company who babies every unit, has no support weapons or light vehicles, and generally contribute very little to the team game.

It's all about reputation.

I don't want to name names but go take a look at the leaderboard, there's several people doing exactly that.