Call for discussion: different points/rarity "costs" for attack vs defense?

[Foreigner]

Gentlemen,

I am under the impression that currently whether a player is on attack or defense, the point/rarity "cost" of any item (unit or piece of equipment) is the same. The limitation of this approach is that by necessity these values are averages. And I would argue that an attacking formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get "rare" assault guns, for example; by the same token, an assaulting formation will be more-than-average likely to get heavier assault guns than an attacking one, etc.

Conversely, a defending formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get towed guns; if defending in an assault scenario, then there would be a more-than-average likelihood of trenches and bunkers vs foxholes.

Of course, a lot of players are likely following these guidelines even in the current system, so any potential benefit might simply end up not worth the trouble. However, it seems to me there is some value in applying at least a "rarity" "discount" for some "appropriate" items depending on whether a player is attacking or defending; or in a Probe, Attack, or Assault scenario.

I would like to read your opinion on the matter!

[Sailor Malan2]

Gentlemen,

I am under the impression that currently whether a player is on attack or defense, the point/rarity "cost" of any item (unit or piece of equipment) is the same. The limitation of this approach is that by necessity these values are averages. And I would argue that an attacking formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get "rare" assault guns, for example; by the same token, an assaulting formation will be more-than-average likely to get heavier assault guns than an attacking one, etc.

Conversely, a defending formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get towed guns; if defending in an assault scenario, then there would be a more-than-average likelihood of trenches and bunkers vs foxholes.

Of course, a lot of players are likely following these guidelines even in the current system, so any potential benefit might simply end up not worth the trouble. However, it seems to me there is some value in applying at least a "rarity" "discount" for some "appropriate" items depending on whether a player is attacking or defending; or in a Probe, Attack, or Assault scenario.

I would like to read your opinion on the matter!

Interesting thought. However I have 2 points.

1) Call me a grog, but we get the ubergear far too often already, and this would only increase that.

2) Your model only works if you assume assaults only occur as part of an army level assault. This isnt true- an assault can take place as the only active section of a passive sector etc.

[Foreigner]

Sailor Malan2,

Thanks for your reply. You raise valid points, but I feel that, depending on the implementation, the problems can be avoided or mitigated. For example, a higher "undiscounted" rarity level of the "uber" stuff should discourage use in situations where its appearance was less likely, while discounts may make them more "affordable" only in the "right" situation. Alternatively, discounts on the "less uber", but still "rare" equipment could make it relatively more attractive than the ""super uber" units.

This discount principle need not be applied just to assault and/or towed guns alone. Technically, it can be done for any unit with a non-zero rarity "cost", so it really is not limited to units only at army-level control. Of course, it need not apply to all units with rarity, either. Getting it right is going to take some work which might not be worth it at this stage (or ever), but then at some point 1:1 representation might had looked the same. Just wanted to start the argument rolling.