Operation Market Garden
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: UKPowerMax on May 08, 2019, 09:57:21 PM
-
Have at it!
-
This is nothing inherently wrong with veterancy now, but it is not that interesting or useful. I generally only keep units alive for resupply.
-
I believe veterancy is great as long as its balanced as an option instead of a must have. Currently there are many players who prefer to let their units die on the field for the short term gain instead of risking the game for long term benefits. As soon as veterancy becomes so powerful that the vast majority of players are incentivized to prioritize retreats and unit conservation, I believe it will become a problem.
Awesome idea utilizing a poll
-
While I can see the desire for veterancy to be more meaningful, as robieman has written, it´s walking a very fine line.
A player always fighting to the last man must not have a significant disadvantage over someone with a vetted company. Of course, vet requires retreating, so the former gets a man more out of each squad, but it´s still difficult to create something "meaningful", something you can really see and feel, without it adversely affecting balance.
-
One possible way to make veterancy more interesting without being overpowered would be to have it unlock upgrade "packages". For example, taking a cue from vCoH, vet 1 for Grenadiers could remain as it is, but vet 2 could be purchasable elite armour (say 50 munitions) and vet 3 could be some other nice passive buff. For riflemen, you could have some sort of offensive weapons package making them tougher and deal more damage, again for a fixed price. That way new players/companies won"t be bowled over by heavily vetted ones but veteran units will still be powerful and fun to use.
-
One possible way to make veterancy more interesting without being overpowered would be to have it unlock upgrade "packages". For example, taking a cue from vCoH, vet 1 for Grenadiers could remain as it is, but vet 2 could be purchasable elite armour (say 50 munitions) and vet 3 could be some other nice passive buff. For riflemen, you could have some sort of offensive weapons package making them tougher and deal more damage, again for a fixed price. That way new players/companies won"t be bowled over by heavily vetted ones but veteran units will still be powerful and fun to use.
I think this is a good idea. Veterancy unlocking "durability" or "dps" upgrades on top of the regular bonuses that cost some quantity of resources allows people to play around with some really strong units, but at a cost.
As it is right now, veterancy is something that is nice to have, but is pretty unnoticeable on most units. F.e. vet 3 riflemen are not able to suddenly do anything a normal riflemen cannot already do, they do not change any matchups significantly (iirc vet 3 rifles beat volks at any range, but still want to approach to close range). Once at vet 3 its worth keeping them alive, but getting rifles to survive vet 1 is almost pointless, and often times is disadvantageous during this game, while providing a negligible benefit in the next few games - if vet 3 is a "meh" improvement for rifles, vet 1 is barely even noticeable. This holds true for most units, with the exception for things like artillery where vet 2 reduces their barrage cooldown which is immediately impactful.
tl:dr veterancy helps you win an engagement youd already win even harder, but rarely allows you to win an engagement where you would have lost, or changes how you would approach an engagement.
-
Am I the only one who thinks vet bonuses that have to be purchased would be horribly boring?
-
Having to purchase vet does sound really awful. Vet was designed the way it is back when we did the massive vet rework of every single unit with guidelines mostly that we wanted vet to feel useful and mostly impact units in a way that was actually useful for that particular unit- but also vet was designed to be small enough that it wasnt game breaking or unit-changing. Players are incentivized to keep their units alive by the reward of (generally) stronger or tougher units but vet isnt so powerful that a vet company is completely game breaking versus a non-vet company.
I said this on the discord but is one of those places where people "say" they want stronger vet units but they really "dont" want stronger vet, since it is an active detriment to gameplay. Vet was actually toned down in some cases- because players became so protective of vet units that they would throw matches/ragequit/embarrassingly retreat if two or three of their vetted units were killed or wounded. I think vet should stay exactly as it is right now. If there are individual cases of units with crap vet (somehow was missed during the last redux) or something, you can make individual fixes but I would be strongly opposed to radical changes to how vet works.
-
Considering how butthurt a lot of guys around here already get about vethunting, I can only imagine what the QQ will be like if vet becomes more actively useful.
-
Personally, I liked the vet bonuses back in old EiR and thought the nerf to them was bad for the persistency aspect of the mod. Instead of caring for your entire company, most players simply cherrypicked a few units to baby. We can pick values that are in-between the original values and current values. This is not a all or nothing decision.
-
did this ever amount to anything?
a 10% save chance for vet 2+ units would be fun
-
Personally, I liked the vet bonuses back in old EiR and thought the nerf to them was bad for the persistency aspect of the mod. Instead of caring for your entire company, most players simply cherrypicked a few units to baby. We can pick values that are in-between the original values and current values. This is not a all or nothing decision.
Like the approach.
-
Why not actually give people a chance to do more with their vet?
I know this sounds ambivalent and unspecific, but I am sure we´d be able to build on it.