Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2017-12-11T14:43:09+02:00 /feed.php?f=67&t=15253 2017-12-11T14:43:09+02:00 2017-12-11T14:43:09+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157913#p157913 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 11 Dec 2017, 14:43


]]>
2017-12-11T13:33:43+02:00 2017-12-11T13:33:43+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157906#p157906 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 11 Dec 2017, 13:33


]]>
2017-12-11T12:53:41+02:00 2017-12-11T12:53:41+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157905#p157905 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/de ... .lua#L2346
higher tech gives less vet to the acu to avoid vetting very rapidly

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 11 Dec 2017, 12:53


]]>
2017-12-11T12:46:25+02:00 2017-12-11T12:46:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157904#p157904 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>
Wesmania wrote:
As a bit of anecdotal evidence, I just got my ACU killed in a game #7170040. I was about 500 mass away from getting my 5th vet, on low health, getting away from some pillars. I assumed it's not a big deal, since I would vet and get away with it, but after OCing 5 pillars I still didn't get my vet, and with just 70 mass to go I died.

Apparently OCing targets makes them worth 50% less mass in veterancy? It's a little bit infuriating when a mechanic you thought you know how to predict starts acting against you because of some bullshit hotfix to a corner case. If ACUs vet too fast by OCing high-tech units, then maybe we could make this behaviour consistent (as in, tech level X gets Y% veterancy bonuses / penalties against tech level Z) instead of making localized changes that screw with players' perception and prediction of game mechanics.


5 pillars are little less than 1000 mass... i think about 990 mass. There is another mechanic that you are probably missing. 2 units attacking one unit will share veteranicy proportional to the amount of damage that they dealt.
Here is an "hard" example:
so if you see a UEF mass extractor, and say one mantis damages it by 50% (380 damage) then say someone repairs it to full HP and then different mantis comes and kills exctractor dealing 760 damage. so maximum amount of vet you can get is 36. vet is going to be split proportionally to damage. second mantis did twice more damage and it will get twice as much vet. (one gets 12 and other 24)

back to meaningfull things: my last idea is that pillars were low health when you OCed them. If not, someone should check replay and see if there is something bugged with overcharge...

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 11 Dec 2017, 12:46


]]>
2017-12-10T20:06:39+02:00 2017-12-10T20:06:39+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157876#p157876 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>
Apparently OCing targets makes them worth 50% less mass in veterancy? It's a little bit infuriating when a mechanic you thought you know how to predict starts acting against you because of some bullshit hotfix to a corner case. If ACUs vet too fast by OCing high-tech units, then maybe we could make this behaviour consistent (as in, tech level X gets Y% veterancy bonuses / penalties against tech level Z) instead of making localized changes that screw with players' perception and prediction of game mechanics.

Statistics: Posted by Wesmania — 10 Dec 2017, 20:06


]]>
2017-12-07T15:01:35+02:00 2017-12-07T15:01:35+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157713#p157713 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>
Before you lost the ability to defend said base but experimentals/ACUs often went through the base, leaving something behind because they didn't have time to kill it all. Now you lose the whole base always(because you can't give the enemy five star exp/acu.)

Oh yeah, T1 arty(for UEF and cybran) is really good now since it doesn't vet commanders like tanks do and commanders got nerfed vs T1 spam quite a bit. I tend to vet now at around 27-29 kills. That's a lot more.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 07 Dec 2017, 15:01


]]>
2017-12-07T13:46:41+02:00 2017-12-07T13:46:41+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157709#p157709 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>

Statistics: Posted by Blackheart — 07 Dec 2017, 13:46


]]>
2017-12-07T12:29:29+02:00 2017-12-07T12:29:29+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157707#p157707 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 07 Dec 2017, 12:29


]]>
2017-12-07T01:22:54+02:00 2017-12-07T01:22:54+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=157693#p157693 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> This is kinda broken imo. the ACU is like 5 Star vetted after 10 mexes. And during this, it gets hp over and over again. So its very hard to kill it.

Statistics: Posted by foleybts — 07 Dec 2017, 01:22


]]>
2017-10-12T16:52:38+02:00 2017-10-12T16:52:38+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=155151#p155151 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>
Feather wrote:
If they didn't get veterancy then it becomes control k wars as the unit gets close to zero hp to deny xp.


Didn't know this feature actualy works. Thought all vet was still given to a last hitting unit.

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 12 Oct 2017, 16:52


]]>
2017-10-05T23:34:20+02:00 2017-10-05T23:34:20+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=154923#p154923 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>
ZLO_RD wrote:
you typiaclly use gunships in a swarm, so any single gunship never really gets many kills. (because they are not effective in low numbers)
also if unit does not kill shit why should it get veteranicy then?
if you make it 1x then t1 bombers will get insane vet.... because they are effective, while t2 gunships are expensive and more designed for snipes and holding enemy in his aa range, imho.


If they didn't get veterancy then it becomes control k wars as the unit gets close to zero hp to deny xp.

Statistics: Posted by Feather — 05 Oct 2017, 23:34


]]>
2017-09-28T15:44:20+02:00 2017-09-28T15:44:20+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=154644#p154644 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> also if unit does not kill shit why should it get veteranicy then?
if you make it 1x then t1 bombers will get insane vet.... because they are effective, while t2 gunships are expensive and more designed for snipes and holding enemy in his aa range, imho.

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 28 Sep 2017, 15:44


]]>
2017-09-28T15:12:38+02:00 2017-09-28T15:12:38+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=154643#p154643 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 28 Sep 2017, 15:12


]]>
2017-09-28T15:03:19+02:00 2017-09-28T15:03:19+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=154642#p154642 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]>

When was the last time you cared about fuel? never probably.


my t1 bomber ran out of fuel while killing engies the other day :|

Statistics: Posted by MayorDamage — 28 Sep 2017, 15:03


]]>
2017-09-28T11:46:24+02:00 2017-09-28T11:46:24+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15253&p=154638#p154638 <![CDATA[Re: New veteran system sucks for regular units]]> t1 tanks needed 3 points - this translates to 3 tanks or 300%
t2 gunships needed 6 points, this translates to 6 tanks or 125%. if it was t2 units (300m each) then it would be 250%
t3 units needed 20 points, which is 75% in t1 tanks, 150% in t1 tanks, or 220% (or more, depending on if its a percy or not) to vet up.

so, its not a direct comparison since it depends on which units you are targeting but its roughly the same or even faster in most/plenty of cases.

however, dont take this as an intent that the vet system is supposed to enable units to get vet faster, or to make it stronger. i think theres a strange trend that on one hand we want to change things but on the other hand we suddenly want them to be just like before. you cant have the same gameplay with an old and new system, and if you try to emulate it as closely as possible then the question is raised as to why you changed it in the first place.

wall of text incoming:
Spoiler: show
So, a similar system (not the same mind you) was in eq for a very long time so ive come across pretty much every conceivable question about vets before.

what a lot of people say is: its dumb i dont like it! -this is perfectly fine, the way to make them happy is to keep the old system

Assuming you like the new system or have issues with the old one, the next thing to address is why we even want to change anything. So usually the complaint is something along the lines of "experimentalllls" which is a perfectly valid complaint imo, its fairly unintuitive that exps should target engies for best vet, and then a 5% ML walks out of an enemy base on 80% hp. But the important part is, that the CHANGE that the new vet system does in this case, is remove the vetting up process. so the issue was not how or when a unit got vet, it was just that it did. an interesting observation.

If we look at the typical unit, we notice that before in 90% of cases, it died before it got any vet. There were no complaints about vet on the typical unit. They didn't get vet and no one really minded.

Actually thats not quite true. There were some complaints, but they were that some units got it too fast! Way back in 2013 percy and other vets were nerfed so they got it ~2x slower. Again a very similar situation to the complaint with exps. Again solved in to the same effect. And coupled with the bit that no one thinks of regular units getting vet, its adding to the above conclusion:

No vet, no problem.

So, historically we can see that pretty much all complaints and cases arose from when a unit got some vet. Of course there are lots of other things one could say at this point, that the real issue was the nature of the vet system, such as the insta heals, or that it should be lower values but happen more frequently, and a whole myriad of other potential solutions.

Indeed, thats usually what people say after hearing the above, that just something else is wrong but vet is still a great idea if done right. Indeed thats what me and Ithilis used to think a couple of years back when EQ was still young. So we explored this. Quite a lot. There was everything, ranging from delayed instaheals to reduced ones, to more max hp and regen to compensate, units vetting up at 100% of their cost or faster, a whole range of stuff was tried.




Long story short, here are the conclusions:
-The mechanism of the vet doesnt really matter, as long as the actual vetting process gives an advantage during combat, it leads to the same issues. Or worse depending on the frequency/"OPness" of the vetting. If a unit gets instahealed it leads to complaints, if it gets a great regen boost, it leads to complaints, if it gets huge max hp it leads to complaints. If you want i can give actual quotes for each of those xD
-Reducing the magnitude to find some "happy medium" just leads to the exact same issues, but either less frequently or less intensely. Its totally possible and even easy to find a solution which is tolerable, but its simply wrong to call it good. The old vet system is perfectly tolerable. We have been playing with it for years.
-Likewise, if after the process, the unit in question is stronger than an unvetted version of itself, this leads to complaints. Its almost the same as above but theres a slight distinction since if it doesnt lead to issues that second it can lead to issues later. This is more the regen+ large max hp approach. That didnt work either.

Now, this makes people unhappy because it makes a players expectations not be met: when an ML walks into a base and leaves it with more than it came, or you spend in a strat to finish it off and then its suddenly 50% hp and not 5%, it makes you upset. Thats perfectly normal, it happens in life overall. Theres papers published about this, design principles based on this, its a part of what makes people people i guess.

And thats just what vet does. It messes with your expectations. Supcom is where you look at the map, see things and then make predictions on whats going to happen. You see 20 tanks and you know that your 30 tanks can kill them, so you attack and take over mex spots or w.e. However, if the enemy army is vetted, its no longer the case. your predictions become less accurate. The outcome of the game becomes more "random" and less based on skill (not actually true but thats the perception)




So, where can vet go? really? well it may seem like I'm a total vet hater, but that's not quite the case. Here are some possible avenues:
-The fuel direction. When was the last time you cared about fuel? never probably. its effectively been removed. Doing this to vet would make it mostly a pretty number. Its actually a pretty small change. Regular units never got vet. The only things to address are exps and acus. Exps can get their vet effectively removed so people will try to use an exp to kill things and not to search for engies. Acus are a special case here since they are a one of a kind unit and it would be cool if they can stay, but they dont really NEED it either. This is effectively solving the issue by making it irrelevant. Its mostly the path we are on now.

-TVG - the other extreme, make vet a core system that everyone expects. Not just a useful side thing that messes with your expectations. Change it enough that you get different expectations from the game. This would lead to some interesting gameplay where your strats would revolve around picking a unit type to abuse and going with that, rather than things like t3 rush or w.e.

-A different system that benefits your units not by making them better but by restoring them to their original state. This ones a little hard to explain, but from what a lot of people say, this is what they really want without realizing it. Its a system where after getting vet your unit becomes useful again, but doesn't mean that it can beat 2 of itself. This is actually a little hard to pull off without just running into the age old issues described above. Either a mix between not being useful and adding a regen amount that repairs your unit but not enough to act like nano, or some special scripted code that only regens out of combat and such. Interestingly, this is actually by far the hardest to achieve, properly. This was explored in EQ as well, but we kept running into the same issues as with an "op" vet system. There is actually a better solution though. Usually what people want is to fight, go back and recieve a fresh new unit, thus rewarding caring for your units. This is a bit of an ironic view (caring for your units is already extremely important, see: mass donations and how it loses you games) but it does work in other games. The way they do it though, is using a repair system. At a glance it can be very similar to a vet system (kill stuff, wait, your units are max HP again) but the key difference here is a need for infrastructure. Doing this in supcom would likely require either absurd code or a new unit type - some land staging facility. Anyway, this post has gone on for far enough, and a working repair system is a whole new topic.

TLDR: people say they want more vet but they also say the dont like vet so they need to work out what they want first. Thanks.

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 28 Sep 2017, 11:46


]]>