Summary of Quinn Duffy's Q&A

Good stuff!

Indeed, although i maintain my sceptical view on the sector layout situation. Yes, it was punishing, but that was good... We'll see how it plays out in the beta =)

There were plenty of comebacks in COH. Plenty of lost high feul points that are turned around into wins because of better unit preservation. I disagree that important high resource points were "too punishing." They were in fact essential... the driving force for a player to fight in the middle of the map.

Centrally located high resource points also define the maps. What would Ango or Rails be without their forward fuel points?

But there are still high fuel/muni points!
They just turned the small +5 points next to your base into customizable points

There were plenty of comebacks in COH. Plenty of lost high feul points that are turned around into wins because of better unit preservation. I disagree that important high resource points were "too punishing." They were in fact essential... the driving force for a player to fight in the middle of the map.

Centrally located high resource points also define the maps. What would Ango or Rails be without their forward fuel points?

I agree with you, I don't like the idea to build ammo/fuel points.

Strategies are based on map content, I think it would be boring if even capturing important map sectors, both teams have the same chances.

Coh2 should be an improved Coh1, not a different one. And changing the "high points" and cutoffs makes COH different.

A: There were a few reasons we looked at changing our resource/territory/economy system. First off, the system was pretty punitive. Losing a high point? Punitive. Having your popcap cut off? Punitive.

We wanted there to be comebacks in the game - it's all part of the concept of 'Every battle tells a story'. So we tried to design an economic system that is a little more resilient but maintain some connections to the original. We also wanted to focus on tactical play and we wanted it to be easier to make maps.

Seems like you didnt understand the core mechanics of this game.
Cutting off an enemy from ressources is a tactical gameplay. It has to be seen in regards of Wehr vs. USA, if one faction is pushed back to its base, he can lower the pressure and still come back by capping the enemy ressources behind frontlines.
By removing this element the overall gameplay becomes not more varied, but more boring.
Thx for all the infos though!

I wouls juat like to add to the Q&A that the resource system in Alpha gave about 30% more resources than it will in beta so the vehicle tecking will be prolonged. I think this is a good thing because in alpha you could get a T34 out in 3 to 4 mins.

I wouls juat like to add to the Q&A that the resource system in Alpha gave about 30% more resources than it will in beta so the vehicle tecking will be prolonged. I think this is a good thing because in alpha you could get a T34 out in 3 to 4 mins.

Yeah they hadn't quite figured it out at that time. It should make the gameplay experience alot better during the beta.

I can understand why Relic wants to change the resource system though. It could make for more interesting games. Where comebacks are more likely, since being cut-off is not really possible anymore. Imagine Langres without that cut-off just in front of the base. Instead of fighting an uphill battle over getting that point back without popcap/resources (And basicly never leaving your base). Without that cut-off point there, the enemy won't be focussing on it so much, but will have to spread out more. Giving the other player a chance to make a big push on the other side of the map and breaking through the enemy lines. So as Quinn Duffy said, you'll have more tactical options to choose from. Which imo is a good thing. We'll have to see how things will play out balance wise though.

Yeah they hadn't quite figured it out at that time. It should make the gameplay experience alot better during the beta.

I can understand why Relic wants to change the resource system though. It could make for more interesting games. Where comebacks are more likely, since being cut-off is not really possible anymore. Imagine Langres without that cut-off just in front of the base. Instead of fighting an uphill battle over getting that point back without popcap/resources (And basicly never leaving your base). Without that cut-off point there, the enemy won't be focussing on it so much, but will have to spread out more. Giving the other player a chance to make a big push on the other side of the map and breaking through the enemy lines. So as Quinn Duffy said, you'll have more tactical options to choose from. Which imo is a good thing. We'll have to see how things will play out balance wise though.

Or put it this way:

Without cut-off points and with high-resource points directly attached to the bases (by arbitrary OPs), there won't be many different centers of interest anymore, only VPs are left. Richt now in COH1, you separate your troups to secure resources, hold VPs, prevent cut-offs.
In COH2 you put your OPs on potential cut-off points next to your base, so you don't have to worry about them. Armies will not have to take care of many areas on the map anymore, just the front line. Clustering, less options, less tactical play... maybe more comebacks, but also much less diversity between individual games.
How is that going together with "every game tells a story", if every game tells the same story?!

During the alpha, I really didn't find any interest fighting for sectors. I'll explain.

On Angoville, Langres or Semois, if your opponent goes for your cut off or high fuel or high muni point, you'll be trying the chase him out asap, as it's your point. In a good match up, you and your opponent will cap/decap important points in answer to the other player moves.

Your oppponent action is benefit for him as he will delay any kind of tech of yours.
So your opponent will find a real interest to take time to go to decap one of your point.
Even if it's a riflesquad, you won't make it fight, it will maybe retreat right after the decap, but you had your decap done and it's a advantage for you.


Everything you're calling punitive is not punitive if the match up is fair.
Yes, a lvl 13 player will find it punitive to get swarm and killed before anytech by a top 20 player.
But that's not on the map layers or mechanics you ahve to work, it's on the match making system.

Since this matter is brought up by Quinn in public, i might re-post my detailed thoughts about this mechanic here as well. I hope i am not going too far here, please let me know, if i did, and i'll remove this post. Prepare, wall of text!!


-----originally posted Dec. 14th 2012------

I would like to add my comments here. I'll do this by directly commenting two quotes by Quinn Duffy.

"One thing was reducing a bit of the mindshare on the resource side of the game and putting more focus on tactical gameplay. That was one reason we reduced the number of points and changed the resource system. We wanted to put that focus on tactics. I think that’s more fun. Resource management is a means to an end. I want to be flanking guys and throwing grenades.

I definitely like the idea to draw the focus as much as possible to tactical gameplay, cause that’s where COH shines! Simplifying the resource system is a two sided sword in this regard though!

Pro:

• What is definitely a great idea is to change the capping system to be based on field presence without dedicating individual units to cap a point, drawing them away from combat! Good move!
  
• Incooperating VPs as sectors, not just as separated points makes more sense. Separating the control of the VP and holding the area surrounding the VP is not necessary and a welcome change!
  

Contra:

• It’s a bad thing however to not force the player into a decision where to put an outpost on sector points, because the lowest risk is choosing the sector just outside your base sector. Putting outposts on sectors further away is higher risk, at the same reward.
  
• The preveous point has even further consequences. Cut-Off sectors usually are closer to the opponents base, which makes it necessary that they are capable rather quickly. Now that those points are usually the points with OPs on them, they are no longer harassable, even if they were meant to be cut-off sectors.
  
  Cut-Off mechanics however are essential for COH gameplay, especially for tactical gameplay, which you want to put the focus on! If there is no need to keep a closer eye to cut-off sectors, you will concentrate your troops into a smaller portion of the map, creating frontlines which reduce the possibility for tactical moves!! I cannot stress enough how important this mechanic is for competitive COH!
  
  You could forbid outposts on specific sectors (like the ones directly connected to your base), but this seems like an artificial approach that I don’t really like.
  
• Many strategies rely on either focusing on specific abilities that need extra munitions, or on quick techs, which need extra fuel. As a consequence, for each tactic you needed individual approaches to conquer the map and hold specific pieces of ground. This resulted in a variety of tactical decisions!
  
  Moreover, the same applied backwards. You could also focus on denying your opponent specific portions of a map to force him into specific stratigies or keep him away from others. This added a large tactical layer to the COH1 resource system.
  
  Allowing players choose which kind of resource to generate from an outpost removes this tactical element partially, cause no matter which territories you deny to your opponent he can still generate the resources he needs.
  
• However, it is kinda necessary to give players the choice which resources to generate, because of the reduction of sector numbers. If you would create separate types of resource points for fuel and munitions, you would have to use up all the available sectors to distribute them. Otherwise you would have to give each of them a too high resource generation rate.
  
  As a consequence there are no sectors left that could be used as quickly capable strategic sectors, which are desperately needed for cut-off mechanics.
  

What I was trying to say here is, all the 4 contra points are not easily separated from each other and are more or less a direct result of decreasing the number of sectors. So, instead of moving the focus towards tactical play by making things “more simple” it actually took away a lot of it.

In this regard I have to support those who said that the COH1 resource system was working really fine, why change it.

Going back back to around 20 sectors per map allows separating different resource types into different sectors, allowing different approaches to a map with different tactics. At the same time you have space for about 4 strategic sectors which you can use for Cut-off sectors that are not worth to put Outposts on.

Adding the capture system based on field presence is already focussing things more on battle, which might be enough to tweak the already good COH1 system to be perfect!

"We have two map modes that we’re looking at. There’s the frontline mode, and there’s what we call a battlefield. The frontline maps are more symmetrical. We have three victory points that you fight over on every map. You want to own a majority of those and start ticking down your opponent’s points.

The battlefield maps are more asymmetrical. It puts pressure on the players to determine whether they want to capture resources or capture victory points. It’s more cutoff gameplay. The territories, much like supply lines, can be cut off, and that prevents players from earning those resources."

I am actually also a bit confused about this statement.
In competitive games we usually want cut-off gameplay to distribute the battle on larger portions of the map and force players into decisions (Battlefield). At the same time competitive games need balanced resource placement and even VP distribution to not give one side an unfair advantage (Frontline).

If these two map types were to make two different parts of the community happy (competitive players and casual players) then I am not sure if it is working out. Or were both map modes meant for both parts of the community the same?

Obviously there are pro's and cons to both systems. It's a risky move by Relic to change the vCoH system. Since it worked and was a good system. The only thing we can do is await the beta, and see for ourselves how things balance out. I bet people were sceptical at first when Relic introduced the current system in vCoH back in 2006. And that worked out just fine

+1 Onkel Sam

Overall, I get the feeling that there won't be much cool stuff in. A fleshed out replay-system for example. Somehow, I'm sceptical about COH2...

Greets
Schepp himself

Great stuff! lots of useful info

Ahahah I just noticed the German officer in the highlight has Quinn's face! AHAHH GREAT

Ahahah I just noticed the German officer in the highlight has Quinn's face! AHAHH GREAT

MVGame

artist m v game... hardcore.

... I knew I shouldn't have read it, I'm mad for the whole day now.

That resource decision and penetration simplification...ooph.

Yeah it's unfortunate they don't seem to fully grasp the beauty of the vCoH resource system. They're trying to account for comebacks, but the vCoH team already took that into consideration. Regardless of map control or holding high points, you get a fixed amount of Manpower - which is really the most important resource. And if you get behind, you earn even more Manpower. There is 0 need for further tweaking to this system.