Why change the spawn system?
Posts: 2742
While we're slipping in mechanics from vCoH why don't we redesign map territory points and sectors?
Also, USF and UKF have static bases, so they don't really get a decision on placement, which is a little clumsy for the change, but then again, so is having forward retreat points for 3 of 5 factions.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
This is irrelevant. Units you build with these factions won't come from off-map, they'll appear next to the building that built them, the only disadvantage you have is no ability to build your structures closer to the field. This is offset by the fact that you don't need to dedicate a unit to actually constructing the structure.
The game is already balance around that point, Ostheer and USF get their 3rd unit around same time for instance. Making spawn from building is just a nerf for USF and UKF because you can't decide where you want to build your T1.
Mr.Smith mentioned 2vs2+ maps, but many 1vs1 maps are also 2vs2 and being able to build you T1 close to the far edge will give you an advantage for sure.
The logic behind spawning outside of your base is clear when you decide to decide asymmetrical factions, there is a big difference in term of space allocation required for Ostheer and UKF, one need to build 5 buildings, 6 in total including HQ. T0-T1-T2-T3-T4-Healing bunker while the second one 0 thus being a possible nightmare for the Ostheer player to position rightly all the building.
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
1. Over the course of the game, you spawn like 20(?) units? and maybe retreating some 200 times. Most of the time you spend walking you do it between your HQ and the point you retreated from. Match selection has already screwed you there anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it (especially with WFA factions).
2. As Inverse pointed out, the delay will only affect the first unit. Subsequent units will BENEFIT from it (provided you made the right strategic choice!). Thus, EFA armies actually get an advantage here!
3. (in 3v3+) The initial engagement where you have your first 2-3 units is crucial. The change might level the playfield a bit more. WFA already has their starting unit arriving fast. EFA gets their reinforcements a bit faster.
4. Although the delay will change, throughput will remain the same. Thus, the flow of units arriving will not change. Also, reread point #1.
5. Yes. Now you will not be able to spawn an AT/MG gun for your allies out of your ass There will be some choices to be made...
Posts: 315
PE wasn't broken in CoH1 because of this. Sure, maybe they'll have to tweak some stuff going forward, but that's not a reason to forego a design change that is a net positive on the game.
OKW's situation was one I hadn't considered and complicates things. Personally I find it more interesting from a gameplay perspective to allow units to spawn from trucks because it adds a risk/reward dynamic that wouldn't have been there previously, but I don't have enough recent gameplay experience to know if that is a practical change to make.
Does this affect only infantry? Or can we expect Panthers popping out of Flak trucks?
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Keep in mind as well that building positioning really only has strategic relevance very early in the game. Early in the game it rarely makes sense to hold back units, while later in the game you're going to want to wait for power timings and unit consolidation more often. Therefore the positioning of any post-T1 structure is far less important.
And like I mentioned in my first post, I really don't think the strategic value of building placement is the most important side effect of this change. The fact that you can't fully control units until they're on the field, can't even select them immediately on some maps/starting positions, and can't properly choose your spawn point are all far larger design problems that this change solves.
Posts: 328
Also, wasn't one of the main reasons they made the change to stop one player or team from being able to totally dominate the other, by camping at their buildings and slaughtering whatever came out?
It's going to be a lot harder to counter a base rush with tanks, if the enemy know exactly where your AT guns/tanks will be appearing from.
It would be great if they used this as an reason to finally improve the layout of the US (pizza) base.
All that said, if it is just for inf and mgs/mortars it hopefully won't cause any issues, although it still sounds like a big advantage if playing in a team of several OKW players.
Posts: 47
Isn't this mainly going to give OKW teams a big advantage on large 4vs4 maps?
Also, wasn't one of the main reasons they made the change to stop one player or team from being able to totally dominate the other, by camping at their buildings and slaughtering whatever came out?
It's going to be a lot harder to counter a base rush with tanks, if the enemy know exactly where your AT guns/tanks will be appearing from.
The patch reads
Core Infantry/Small Team Weapon Spawn Points
• All Core Infantry Squads and Core Small Weapon Teams now spawn from its corresponding building rather than from Off-Map.
How exactly is OKW benefiting from this, all infranty units(except obers) spawn from HQ truck which you can't move. LEIG I really doubt that counts as a Small Weapon Teams.
And Tanks will still be off-map. AT on the other hand shouldn't be a Small Weapon Team, thus off map.
What I gather from what Small Weapon Teams mean: MGs, mortars and (rakettenwerfer?)
Infrantie guns, Leigh, regular AT; will still very likely come off map
Posts: 63
If this change is implemented there needs to be a way to select where each team mate starts(which on random teams will be horrible to try and get randoms to agree with you or pay attention) as certain maps it is imperative to get an mg setup in specific locations or several players to one side of the map. Ostheer and Soviets are already screwed on large maps by no FRP, this will just make certain maps even more frustrating.
In the end, minor benefits for extra frustration. Don't fix what isn't broken.
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
People may find it tedious for units walking onto the battlefield, but I think it keeps it even as you won't have one faction getting units to the front much faster than another as a good portion of the factions can't place their structures in a new spot.
This would also cripple certain team games strat to an extent as you can't decide which spawn your units will come from. Your ally needs some support from a unit you have in production? Well, it has to go all the way from your base structure to reach them.
Furthermore the current system ensures units that have slower build-times aren't compensated by moving the building up. Doing this negates changes to like the MG42 and the Maxim which have slower build-times to prevent them from taking territory/buildings quickly. If they spawned in the base or at the edge, what was the point of the build-time change?
Also staying this makes things more strategic as you can keep your buildings safe versus not being safe, does it matter? Base-annihilation is so rare and uncommon that even if your structures are up forward for reinforcement in the base sector, they'll almost ever be sieged except in the worst case scenario due to their high health and the fact of how dangerous it is to keep units near a hostile base sector. This is not CnC or StarCraft where a base can be burned down incredibly quickly, generally house multiple structures for multiple ques and are often located in different areas of the map and near the fighting.
The majority of bases in CoH 2 aside from OKW trucks and Brit emplacement spam are in the very rear that serve as a staging area and will generally not see any action for the majority of the game so building placement doesn't matter for the most part aside from units reinforcing on the way out and ensuring it's not an utter mess. And no reason to gimp other factions as previously stated.
Posts: 179
Except maybe for USF, their infantry still drop in normally because going through a labyrinth is NOT fun.
Posts: 1891
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1
I do not find walking from offmap annoying. It allows players to make good use of rally points (remember those?) and allows for rapid deployment on certain maps, expanding the available early strategies (ie. double teaming on rails and metal). It makes more sense to me from a realism perspective as well.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Remove MG upgrades from the base layout and have them as upgrades, allow base buildings to be built in friendly territory
We almost every other RTS now, boiz!
But for real I don't think that would ever happen because of that.
Posts: 118 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedI don't think this needs to be changed.
People may find it tedious for units walking onto the battlefield, but I think it keeps it even as you won't have one faction getting units to the front much faster than another as a good portion of the factions can't place their structures in a new spot.
You think so because you are extremely biased against OKW. I guess that should be clear by now.
This is all irrelevant folks, the main vital units for OKW are volks sturms and R43 which have to arrive from the HQ anyway. "Oh noes Owl uhu arriving faster than before on the field, OP nerf when"
Posts: 658
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
This is a change made solely to benefit 1v1, and so far the arguments in favour (faster units on field, more "skillful" building placement) are irrelevant in team games and do more to hurt these modes as others have stated.
If this change is implemented there needs to be a way to select where each team mate starts(which on random teams will be horrible to try and get randoms to agree with you or pay attention) as certain maps it is imperative to get an mg setup in specific locations or several players to one side of the map. Ostheer and Soviets are already screwed on large maps by no FRP, this will just make certain maps even more frustrating.
In the end, minor benefits for extra frustration. Don't fix what isn't broken.
This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the current system is a terrible design that is frustrating for all players because units are in some cases not selectable immediately based on map and starting position and some unit abilities are not available for arbitrary periods of time until units manage to walk onto the map proper. Balance and strategic impact take a back seat to poor design here. Arguing against a fundamental design improvement because it might cause a temporary imbalance is extremely short-sighted. Balance is easily tweaked. This change is a net quality-of-life improvement for every single player from a design perspective, which means the game will improve in the long term even if you have to endure a relatively short period of imbalance. And keep in mind that until the change is actually implemented it's impossible to say what balance impact, if any, it will actually have.
Furthermore the current system ensures units that have slower build-times aren't compensated by moving the building up. Doing this negates changes to like the MG42 and the Maxim which have slower build-times to prevent them from taking territory/buildings quickly. If they spawned in the base or at the edge, what was the point of the build-time change?
Again, balance is irrelevant in this case because as a design change this is a net positive. Balance can be tweaked. But even so, your logic doesn't make any sense at all. This doesn't just push up the time-to-field of certain units, it pushes up the time-to-field of all units. In the vast majority of cases the relative times-to-field of two different units are going to be reduced by the exact same amount. It doesn't matter that Maxims and MG42s are going to hit the field 20 seconds faster when Grens and Conscripts and every other infantry unit in the game are going to hit the field 20 seconds faster as well. It's a complete wash.
Posts: 480 | Subs: 1
I would be in favour on giving Ostheer back its old vcoh style buildings all together. I have always hated the way both the Ostheer and Soviets buildings looked as well as the lack of customisation with Brits and USF bases.
Totally agree, the sowjet and ostheer base looks interchangeable and death. They are just some texture with about no animation. Compare this with WH T3 in CoH1, a Puma produced in this building and it will drive out of it after fully constructed and you can see that something is happening within in this building, lights flash, spark from welding machines are flight trough the air, it was amazing.
Posts: 1216
Because money.
So why change this that has been a important way of how CoH2 has been now since 2013?
Change it up dramatically every year or so to revive interest in the game, either through generating hype or re-attracting players that have since left.
I don't agree, the only real difference is that instead of building nay tier anywhere in HQ sector, most people will now build at the edge. Which in mosts cases isn't a really big deal. Only faction that benefits is OKW...if in the rare chance tat you both have an OKW player that deploys trucks as close to the enemy as possible, AND somehow the enemy doesn't home in on them with artillery for instant squad wipe on Obersoldaten spawn.
it will make game get going faster which is good, also placement of buildings will now matter further increasing skill in the game... it is a good change
Everyone hated that units came offmap when coh2 was launched... now you hate it when they are going back that every rts has done since stoneage?
As for deploying outside of map, I liked it: it didn't matter where you built your tier building, unless it happened to block the spawn point. The only remote problem was the enemy parks a unit at the spawn point to rape new units coming in...which only works if the latter is a total noob and forgets about changing rally points, AND you're playing custom/ annihilation mode as spawn points are almost guarded/ really close to base emplacements.
So no, I don't see how it would get the game going faster besides placebo, nor do I think people were repulsed by the idea.
Anyways I'd like to see all the vitriol about this change in June 2013. Surely you're just over-exaggerating?
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the current system is a terrible design that is frustrating for all players because units are in some cases not selectable immediately based on map and starting position and some unit abilities are not available for arbitrary periods of time until units manage to walk onto the map proper.
All players really? Did you do a poll to know that , are you including yourself since you don't play the game? How many threads have we see about this terrible system all players are frustrated off here in coh2.org?
Actual spawning system is a good compromise to not have to think how to balance spawning units from building. It has a defaut which you mention but devs can easily provide a workaround or a fix to that.
Posts: 474
Livestreams
77 | |||||
15 | |||||
1 | |||||
122 | |||||
105 | |||||
19 | |||||
18 | |||||
12 | |||||
7 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.840223.790+3
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.927408.694+1
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.306114.729+2
- 9.1123623.643+4
- 10.266140.655+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Chmura
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM