Summary of Quinn Duffy's Q&A

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!

Don't think so. Battle of the Bulge mod has that and the 1st thing people want to get rid of is presence based capping.
In the beginning you'll have a hard time figuring out how much presence is needed to secure a resource. And the sheer presence of a unit in an enemy sector will give it's position away because of the auto-capping.

With the changes so far it seems Relic's focus is to make CoH2 more appealing to casual players at the cost of long-term interest in the game. And the lobby is full of comp stomps and basic matches so maybe it will work out for them.

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.

+1

Don't think so. Battle of the Bulge mod has that and the 1st thing people want to get rid of is presence based capping.
In the beginning you'll have a hard time figuring out how much presence is needed to secure a resource. And the sheer presence of a unit in an enemy sector will give it's position away because of the auto-capping.

BotB turns the entire territory sector into the capture point. That's not the same thing.

Don't think so. Battle of the Bulge mod has that and the 1st thing people want to get rid of is presence based capping.
In the beginning you'll have a hard time figuring out how much presence is needed to secure a resource. And the sheer presence of a unit in an enemy sector will give it's position away because of the auto-capping.

You still have to stand close to a strat point, just like before. It's just that the unit doesnt become passive anymore.

I reached lvl 11 in coh2 alpha and i felt that i am playing scheldt type games...Its just becomes camp and game goes longer with this resource system. Played 3vs3 also with jim rainbow, same thing in that also. Around 1 hour fight but may be that was due to map of coh2 alpha. Lets see coh2 beta maps and things they tweaked.

What i wanted really that Relic should focus on multiplayer/competitive side more than single player/casual gamers in coh2. Nobody thought that coh can be so fun in multiplayer when it was released and focus in coh was for campaign/casual play at that time. GR tourney/snf/other tourney showed that real fun of coh is in competitive gaming.
Honestly Relic already said that they focus on single player mainly so i don't expect much tbh from coh2 towards competitive play and imo it will not become E-sport by far.
Campaign will be awesome as was in coh.

Taking more damage and being passive while capping is a gameplay element. You can prevent an enemy from capturing an important sector.
Capping in an AOE may be a veterancy or upgrade ability just as taking normal damage for wehr pioneers at vet3.
Making passive capping avaiable from the start removes this gameplay element.
Imagine someone unknown in the general forums would have suggested, that every squad can cap points and have no penalties while doing that...
Maybe i got this wrong and relic has something different in mind. Looking forward to the beta.

there are several approaches to penalize someone capping. The capturing radius is really not that big, you can just surround it by red cover if you want to make it harder for specific points. But in general, it makes the game faster paced, if you don't have to dedicated a squad to capping. Makes it harder to camp a point. I found it to be a good change from what i have experienced.

there are several approaches to penalize someone capping. The capturing radius is really not that big, you can just surround it by red cover if you want to make it harder for specific points. But in general, it makes the game faster paced, if you don't have to dedicated a squad to capping. Makes it harder to camp a point. I found it to be a good change from what i have experienced.

As i said, this maybe a doctrinal ability, but not from the start.
If you look at vcoh, there are infantry squads who can cap faster. This creates diversity in gameplay and is linked to the wehr vs. USA gameplay by wehr being defensive in the beginning and getting more offenive in mid and late by having infantry avaiable, which also can cap faster.
As i understand your post, you want every infantry to cap at the same speed, being able to fight normally while capping, but penalize this by red cover.
However red cover is a different gameplay element than capping speed and taking more damage while using special abilitys. You can have this red cover around VP´s already in coh1 (which will be the same then in coh2), but removing the current capping mechanics will not improve the gameplay, but make it more poor, because Capping will be penalized always in the same way: red cover.
This will make the game more fast paced, but also more simple and boring.

Seriously, there is no need to remove things, which have been proven to work just fine. What coh2 just needs to do is to improve the multiplayer support like the replay system. Look at Starcraft 2, how versatile replays are there.

I haven't said anything about capping speed. They may still give different multipliers to different units. You may even think of additional elements like capping speed increase when you put more units into the small circle around the strat point, so you may trade higher capping speed for a higher risk to get hit by mortar shells or other AoE weapons. ... Just theocrafting here.

I don't know if you have played the Alpha or not, but if not, i strongly suggest to wait for the Beta before you judge this mechanic. I havent heard anyone complain about this change during the alpha at all.

+1 to OnkelSam..., someone make a poll after beta plz | do we like the new or the old resources...?

Bigger maps, less resource points...? Somehow i feel the vote will be onesided

I agree with everything OnkleSam stated. I discussed one extra issue I have on the resource system last night on my stream. I am quite uncertain if it might create a degree of 'luck' in crucial early game teching decisions.

The reason I say this is that CoH is not really a scouting intensive game for tech structures in comparison to games like AoE and SC2. With sectors being OP'd with either fuel or ammo, you can never be sure if your opponent is going for heavier fuel or ammo based strats. The way CoH works means you simply will most likely not see an OP close to the base if an opponent hold their portion of the map.

In vCoH you can know roughly how much fuel your opponent will have depending on how long they have held the fuel or you have denied them fuel. This might mean you can maybe squeeze in WSC before going to t3/t4 for AT or catching your opponent really off guard with a puma.

This could make many players always take the 'safe option' just incase something might happen, rather than knowing exactly what will happen. In early game this is critical and you shouldn't have to waste fuel on a 'maybe' decision. Luck and linear play is what comes into my head with this resource system.

@OnkelSam:

I completely agree with your points. However, I don't think that reverting to coh1's resource system is necessary, seeing as if tuned properly, the coh2 system could prove to be more complex and intriguing. Here's how:

I was already quite flabbergasted by Relic's decision to omit a dynamic pop-cap system, since I believe it’s an essential ingredient to coh’s gameplay. While punitive, it was one of the only incentives a player had to cut-off in coh1’s late game. Most veteran coh1 players would agree that the whole cut-off dynamic is really what dictates the ebb and flow of the game and so it should remain quintessential throughout the game. Furthermore, coh2’s cold weather system, by nature, will incite slightly campier gameplay, and so if anything, coh2 should encourage players even more than coh1 to be proactive and harass-ive. I fear the possibility that most players who have fallen behind in the game will be forced to create outposts on their adjacent territories to compensate for their loss of territory, and the game will only encourage them to do so, since it’ll be relatively inexpensive to them due to their MP income being 1.5-2x that of their opponent (because of massive upkeep costs). Moreover, in the Alpha I observed that standard territories and outposts granted the same income increase irrespective of how far they were from your base. I found that very peculiar, since the new resource system provides for great opportunities to add depth to the system of coh1, and yet it felt dumbed down. I realize the game was in its Alpha stage, so instead of criticizing it, I’d like to suggest ways of improving.

The further a territory is from your base, the more valuable it should be, and accordingly outposts will also increase in worth the further they are built from your base. The desired effect is that it’ll encourage players to vie for territories that aren’t situated in the most convenient location, which will in turn force them to be clever about it. This dichotomy will hopefully induce an interesting interplay between capping aggressively and yet hindering your opponent from doing so themselves. For example, a player could attempt a fuel heavy strategy whose success lay in his/her ability to capture a sector adjacent to their enemy, create an outpost, and hold it until they have gathered enough resources for a fast armored push. Scenarios like this exhibit the potential of coh2s resource system if implemented and tuned properly. I genuinely believe that it’ll provide for a far wider array of opening strategies than coh1’s did. Unfortunately, in the alpha I noticed that, in most 1v1 games featuring good players, territory control was split pretty evenly between both players, since neither player really felt the need to attempt a territory push that might prove risky and costly.

Major snippage

You had to post this. A clear breakdown of the answer and its potential implications in the game. The kind of speculative, downward spiral I find myself traveling down on a cold, beta-less evening.

This news sounds... troubling. For one thing, I can't figure out why this made its way as a priority in the dev cycle when I've never heard a peep regarding CoH's resource system from the community. I always felt like the system was quite unique and well designed. A system that forced players to engage and not 'turtle' their way to victory.

Ironically, it's this idea of self-sustaining bases with minimal territory control that was one of the causes of the British faction "breaking" the game upon the release of OF - now it sounds like that broken system is going to be implemented into CoH2. Maybe not to the degree it was in OF (there might be some duct tape involved), but still an apparent facsimile of the broken British system.

I really like the idea of a flexible resource point that players choose which resource to invest in. I think it adds a degree of strategic decision making. However, the idea that there are fewer strategic points, and that the quantity a player controls is arbitrary, removes a large chunk of that strategic risk.

Another thing, why has this been given priority over issues or features that the player base, and even the casting community, have brought up? It seems bizarre, especially since the system wasn't broken in the first place. Like OnkelSam said - the resource cutoffs & harassment are a large part of the tactical AND strategic decisions, choices and elements of the game. This is another post that sounds abrasive and overly critical and, once again, that's not my intent. I'm honestly curious as to why this change has occurred. Maybe it will actually improve the game in a way, at least I, haven't considered.

And another sexual snip

I pretty much agree with all of this as well, from the observations to the suggestions. My fear is also campier gameplay. As a person who used very much 'turtle' to victory in other RTS's, CoH taught me to be aggressive. I remember the first few matches I played in mid 2007, over at Roger's house, just before the release of OF. I'm chillin' in mai 'mercan base, harassin' a bit but with no real strategy, tryin' to decide wut tree I wanna go down when BAM! - TIGER ACE IN THE BASE!!! Practically shit my fuckin' pants.

Needless to say I lost in a very humiliating way, but that completely changed the way I played RTS games from then onward.

Regardless of all of this, we'll see what's up on Tuesday and find out if our fears are justified or we're just over-thinking dipshits who need to L2P.

+1 to everything Pounders said except the part about players choosing the resources they get - I dunno if I like the idea that something other than map control should be the main deciding factor in what kind of resources a player gets. That's one of Relic's greatest RTS innovations and steps backwards from it strike me as ill-conceived.

+1 to OnkelSam..., someone make a poll after beta plz | do we like the new or the old resources...?

Bigger maps, less resource points...? Somehow i feel the vote will be onesided

They're not gonna change that anymore..

I agree with everything OnkleSam stated. I discussed one extra issue I have on the resource system last night on my stream. I am quite uncertain if it might create a degree of 'luck' in crucial early game teching decisions.

The reason I say this is that CoH is not really a scouting intensive game for tech structures in comparison to games like AoE and SC2. With sectors being OP'd with either fuel or ammo, you can never be sure if your opponent is going for heavier fuel or ammo based strats. The way CoH works means you simply will most likely not see an OP close to the base if an opponent hold their portion of the map.

In vCoH you can know roughly how much fuel your opponent will have depending on how long they have held the fuel or you have denied them fuel. This might mean you can maybe squeeze in WSC before going to t3/t4 for AT or catching your opponent really off guard with a puma.

This could make many players always take the 'safe option' just incase something might happen, rather than knowing exactly what will happen. In early game this is critical and you shouldn't have to waste fuel on a 'maybe' decision. Luck and linear play is what comes into my head with this resource system.

It could just as easily cause scouting with light vehicles to be a more important aspect of the game.

+1 to everything Pounders said except the part about players choosing the resources they get - I dunno if I like the idea that something other than map control should be the main deciding factor in what kind of resources a player gets. That's one of Relic's greatest RTS innovations and steps backwards from it strike me as ill-conceived.

Yeah, I tend to agree actually. That was one of the concerns I voiced when Rogers and I headed down to PAX to play the pre-alpha. I was trying to see the pros and cons of both and trying to be aware of my reactionary bias.

My point in my previous post is highlighting my hope on how the system will work. I'm hoping that the resource selection is a new strategic consideration. I'm also hoping that the arbitrarily assigned med/high-value points that focused battles around them in CoH changes in favor of all points being critical, strategic targets. In that way allowing the more dramatic battles of the original game to happen at any point on the map.

From a player's point-of-view, I'm hoping that it allows for a new strategic consideration and thought process when they capture territory. Thoughts like, "I've pushed up this far and need to defend it, what's the best way to do that before the (expected) counter-attack? Maybe I should invest in armor? I'll need to try and get a fuel surplus. Mines and AT units? Hm... probably munitions then. Shit, I hope I'm making the right call here..."

Again, this is my hope. We'll see what happens tomorrow and throughout beta.

Well, the reason dramatic battles happen at high value points on existing CoH maps is because you can't choose those points - if you want the high fuel or high muni, you need to fight for the one in the middle of the map. If maps were designed with all the high points tucked away closer to bases, people wouldn't fight as hard for the +5s in the middle, because it wouldn't be worth throwing as many units away. So allowing players to pick which resource points are important will just lead them to make the safer points the important ones - it won't turn every point into an important one.

It all comes down to implementation.

That said, I do think that CoH and DoW2 both have been fairly criticized about being a game of musical chairs in regards to capping points. And while I totally understand all the strategic decisions you guys are feeling will be lost with the "simplification" of the system (for lack of a better word) it also shifts the strategic focus off some arbitrary resource point and instead towards the physical terrain of the map and the tactical benefits of that rather than "I need to defend this +16 fuel point".


Also, one criticism I had of DoW2 and Coh map design was that there was often "natural" points that simply were not realistically contestable due to their proximity to your opponents base. Taking those "useless" points and making them customizable actually adds a lot to the game, because it allows you to develop new strategies. For example, maybe you go really heavy on fuel on those points to tech faster and get out early tanks. This creates an opportunity for your opponent to scout this, and counter it. Ultimately taking some useless resource points that for all intents and purposes may as well have just been attributed to your HQ and adding strategic depth to the game.


At the end of the day, CoH/DoW2's resource system were only really interesting if you played the game at the top level where you really needed to capitalize and plan around the resources. For all those middle of the road players, they were actually rather frustrating systems that got in the way of enjoying the game for it's tactical battles. That's largely why team games are so popular among weaker players in DoW2: resource points are significantly less important and much harder to decap or harass.



As long as there's still 3-5 resource points on the map + 3 vp's, I think this is a good move.

I sincerely doubt it will shift to the physical terrain - in DoW II, where the capture points mattered much less (no high or medium points, no cutoffs) it just shifted to the VPs. Letting people customize their natural points opens up new strategies in that it lets them get their resources from a safe base that can't be harassed rather than from the field where they have to fight for it. What made DoW/CoH innovative in the first place is that they moved resource collection out of the bases and onto the field so that exciting fights happened in the middle ground instead of skirmishes at the resource lines. We'll still get those, but they will be clusterfucks around the VP, if DoW 2 has taught us anything. Teching will be more like Starcraft where players come in with a build order because they can know (even more than SC2!) that their res won't get harassed.