Why change the spawn system?

How is it "innovative" to copy the way it was done in CoH1? Why does it make sense to make major design changes, that will in turn require other major design changes, such as completely redoing the Brit and USF bases, 3 years into the life of the game? Is there really no easier way to add more strategic choices to the game? Is there even any trade-off to building your shit at the front of your base? I've yet to see much base sniping in any game I've played or in high level streams, even with buildings built at the front of the base for reinforcement purposes.

I'm actually not opposed to this change, but even after playing CoH1, reading patch notes, and reading this thread, I guess I'm just not really convinced there's any point to it.

If anyone has a replay where sniping buildings at the forward part of a base played an interesting role in the game,I'd be all for it. I've just never seen that happen.

With that said though, the design of the USF and Brit base was really stupid from the start, just like many other COH2 designs. I'm not sure how well the spawn system will work with them...

I'd suggest revamping the USF and Brit bases and have OKW inf always spawn at the HQ truck as a downside to having forward bases.

Thats another problem.

Changing one design "issue" creates more map/balance issues.

I do find it retarded that relic tries to make such a decision after not fixing thousands of bugs etc.

I'd prefer the off-map spawn in Coh 1, see how it works

My comment was a general statement, not one aimed only at this discussion. People are obsessed with the potential balance implications of design changes instead of discussing the merits of those changes from a pure design perspective, which necessitates taking a long-term view of the game.

This particular change is interesting because it requires relatively little effort on Relic's end and will have a relatively large impact on how games play out, especially early on. Discussing how this will work with factions that have non-traditional base construction is completely necessary. Personally I feel the rewards, especially in terms of improved unit control and consistency, vastly outweigh the problems brought up by the base structures of some of the factions in the game, but there's room to argue on both sides.

My whole point was people need to look longer-term when thinking about how design changes impact the game. Do I think this is the best way to add strategy and improve the game? Of course not; my argument from the start has been that the improvements to unit control this change brings far outstrips any strategic benefit. But Relic has added this to the game and they haven't added the other things I want. Something is better than nothing, and for the reasons I have reiterated over and over again in this thread I believe this change will result in a net improvement in the long run.

Well actually nevermind my previous questions - after all, this change is going into a preview mod. So we can all look how it plays out and see if it makes things more interesting or not. Maybe it will lead to more interesting strategic dynamics and base sniping / Quicker deployment will become part of the game.

Snobbish? I guess, I'm just not sugar coating. Some of us have been through all stages of the COH life cycle. Would you tell a 90 year old guy he's snobbish because he says he knows more than you about an event that happened before you were born?

We're not talking about past stages of coh, we're talking about its current stage. Your comparison would be accurate if we were talking about 2.301 CoH1 or something.

We're not talking about past stages of coh, we're talking about its current stage. Your comparison would be accurate if we were talking about 2.301 CoH1 or something.

Building spawns used to be a thing in this franchise, therefore we are talking about previous stages of coh.

My comment was a general statement, not one aimed only at this discussion. People are obsessed with the potential balance implications of design changes instead of discussing the merits of those changes from a pure design perspective, which necessitates taking a long-term view of the game.

What Inverse says is right. This isn't just about changing the spawn system. Even though it was better in vcoh, it isn't one of COH2s major issues. They are finally changing something that was backwards from the beginning that they refused to budge on. Maybe next they bring in left and right side doctrine choices, suppression for mines (instead of insta wipes), and other things.

If I didn't know who you are I would think that this post is supposed to be a satire. The elitism and snobbiness...holy shit. Also when did you and inverse gather the high level experience in coh2 you were mentioning ?

+1

Snobbish? I guess, I'm just not sugar coating. Some of us have been through all stages of the COH life cycle. Would you tell a 90 year old guy he's snobbish because he says he knows more than you about an event that happened before you were born?

just because you lived it does not mean you have somehow more valid knowledge or opinion. yes, if you have not lived it, you will lack personal connection and maybe that will lead to 'wrong' opinions. on the same token, if you have lived it, you might develop other natural characteristics that hinder you from making the 'right' decision such as nostalgia or definition of "norm". ppl who transitioned from vcoh to coh2 probably thought the new system was a deviation from the norm from the get-go and held that belief since then.

Kudos to Inverse for having more patience than I ever could. Talking to the vast majority of people who have only played COH2 about balance in this game is like arguing with a child about 99 pennies vs 1 dollar.

Unless you've played both games at a high level for a good period of time you probably won't understand.

This. So many times I see people in balance forum, many of which aren't really qualified to have a valid opinion, saying "no you can't change this because that." An example over this past week "no you can't make mines not insta wipe squads because that is the only way to deal with infiltration troops." Its complete mongoloid logic. Fix the fucking game design, try to tweak the balance at the same time to compensate, and if it needs further ironing out then make some more changes in the next patch. So many fanboys in balance forums losing their shit because improving the game as a whole might weaken the only faction they know how to play for a month or two. We shouldn't even have a balance discussion its 95% low tier gobbly goop.

Moving on, VonIvan is not an authority on this subject. Sure he knows more about current COH2 meta, what doctrine best counters emplacement regiment, how well Comets are currently performing against Panthers, etc. This is a design issue, and there are other people here more qualified to speak in terms of general RTS design than he is.

if you are gonna stroke Inverse so thoroughly, while you are at it remember that (please correct me if i am wrong but i am 99% sure) it was Inverse who said something like 'balance discussion belongs to pro players and gameplay mechanics discussions belongs to normal gamers'. here's the quote :

Show Spoiler

Am I totally out of line to think that this change is a DESIGN change that will affect balance? A Design change that will not improve the game objectively. the most convincing argument is 'it will speed up the early game'. does early game need speeding up? i don't think so.

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE. Maybe it will somehow fix all the problems. Probably not since you know... logic. Yes, I should not have quoted thunderhun's quote fully, i only agree with partially so my position might not be as clear but all I am saying is that:

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE most likely negatively.

If this was a change something that of implementing acceleration (removing instant acceleration), I think that would be more objective change that will add more depth and second to second tactic to the game, I would be all for it.

And I can't just sit on a sideline while old has been elites with heads the size of both Dakotas tell me, who according to one of them have valid concerns about this and do not understand why it has to change, that I am a short-sided kid.


This is pretty long and I did not proof read so please poke holes in it if you want to. I am up for changing my mind if actual valid arguments crop up.

EDIT: NM, I don't need to continue. I'm done, carry on, doesn't matter anyway...

if you are gonna stroke Inverse so thoroughly, while you are at it remember that (please correct me if i am wrong but i am 99% sure) it was Inverse who said something like 'balance discussion belongs to pro players and gameplay mechanics discussions belongs to normal gamers'. here's the quote :

Show Spoiler

Am I totally out of line to think that this change is a DESIGN change that will affect balance? A Design change that will not improve the game objectively. the most convincing argument is 'it will speed up the early game'. does early game need speeding up? i don't think so.

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE. Maybe it will somehow fix all the problems. Probably not since you know... logic. Yes, I should not have quoted thunderhun's quote fully, i only agree with partially so my position might not be as clear but all I am saying is that:

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE most likely negatively.

If this was a change something that of implementing acceleration (removing instant acceleration), I think that would be more objective change that will add more depth and second to second tactic to the game, I would be all for it.

And I can't just sit on a sideline while old has been elites with heads the size of both Dakotas tell me, who according to one of them have valid concerns about this and do not understand why it has to change, that I am a short-sided kid.


This is pretty long and I did not proof read so please poke holes in it if you want to. I am up for changing my mind if actual valid arguments crop up.

Show Spoiler
I've been saying long term design >>> current balance since the very beginning. And instead of saying "Inverse thats my line" I just posted in solidarity. But since you brought it up I did some digging in my own ancient threads, for your viewing pleasure. Those are only in my threads too, I must've said something similar a dozen times in other peoples topics but I can't be bothered to spend an hour searching through my 1700 post history

The main pro is instantly giving orders to your new units when they enter the field instead of waiting around for them to cross the magic line. I'm not going to get in to the nitty gritty about the early game implications of changing the spawn system, which will probably be minor to nil. Overall this isn't a huge deal one way or the other, the point is they finally budged on an annoying design choice that they refused to change since alpha.

Man I wish 12azor would come back for a few days and just rip into the forums lol.

Am I totally out of line to think that this change is a DESIGN change that will affect balance? A Design change that will not improve the game objectively. the most convincing argument is 'it will speed up the early game'. does early game need speeding up? i don't think so.

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE. Maybe it will somehow fix all the problems. Probably not since you know... logic. Yes, I should not have quoted thunderhun's quote fully, i only agree with partially so my position might not be as clear but all I am saying is that:

This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE most likely negatively.

You can't make any meaningful change to any competitive game without there being some sort of impact on balance. Balking at design changes because you don't know how they will affect balance is a great way to dismiss all but the most miniscule of incremental changes. Your concerns, like those of others in this thread, stem from a fear of bad balance that is irrational and near-sighted. You're taking a one-month view of a change when you need to be looking a year out. Can you give me a reason this change doesn't work that isn't "it might affect balance in some way for a few months"?

From my perspective, I see a lot of objective unit control improvements that this change brings. You'll be able to double-tap a building hotkey and center your camera on the exact location where your units will spawn. You won't have to worry about southern and eastern spawning positions forcing you to wait seconds before units walk into your camera view so you can select them, while your opponent in the north or west has no such delay. You won't have to worry about certain unit abilities arbitrarily being unusable until units cross a magic line, before which they are on the map but not "on the map". You won't have to wait a completely random amount of time between when a unit finishes construction and when that same unit is fully usable, an amount of time that is different for every starting position on every map. And you won't have ridiculous antipatterns, like juggling rally points to choose spawn locations and retreating the moment units enter the map proper in order to save a few seconds, that add artifical complexity that is neither fun for players nor entertaining for spectators.

All of that means quicker, more consistent access to your infantry units and their abilities; it's hard to see how that can be construed as being bad for the game. But when you're obsessed with seeing balance impact in every little thing, you lose sight of how changes can affect, and improve, the game on a more fundamental level. Balance will go up and down whether this change is made or not. This is an opportunity to strengthen the game's foundation by removing some frustrating control mechanics. The long-term impact is far more important than the short.

Hey, quick question for you guys:

Do you feel like you've achieved anything at all today, by arguing with people on the internet, using walls of text?

Clearly all of you have strong opinions, and are unwilling to change your own.

Before I argue with someone, I always ask myself "Does this person hold as strong as opinion as I do?"
If the answer is yes, dont bother arguing, do something that will be more rewarding instead.

Just something to consider before a long winded argument next time

In b4 Mr_S is gay, et al.

It is unfortunate to see the community so divided on this that we are willing to tear into each other.

I understand the risk v. reward in COH1 aspect of building design, and I really, really liked it in that game. However, COH2 has significant differences in level design, faction design, and diversity which this change will not take into account.

Had this been built into the game in 2013 or early in the game's life I would have been 100% for it. Since the design of the game widely departed from COH1 after this point I don't think it appropriate to try to bring back this mechanic.

The rally point system, while certainly imperfect adds a seriously important element in team games where teams can work together or split up as soon as the game starts, providing interesting strategy options. This will be completely removed by forcing spawns in buildings. To add to the benefit in 1v1 is small, since 2 factions gain literally 0 choice about base layout. If the problem is inconsistency in delay, simply move the starting off map point to the edge of the map so that units appear and near instantly enter the field.

Again, I understand the draw for both sides, but I am afraid at this stage in the COH2 life cycle this change does more harm than good. I am willing to test it, but my general feeling is to wait until COH3 to return this feature (as well as commander tech tree choices).

Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production. This would, I assume, solve the issue of arrival outside of control time. Another simpler option is to leave the units symbol greyed out until the unit is on the field to give the player a very obvious tool to know when the squad can be ordered to begin a task.

Very good points. That's an interesting alternative solution to consider. Probably would be a lot more expensive to implement however.

I am willing to test it, but my general feeling is to wait until COH3 to return this feature (as well as commander tech tree choices).

Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production.

Very good points. That's an interesting alternative solution to consider. Probably would be a lot more expensive to implement however.

+2
Some solid points there

Hey, quick question for you guys:

Do you feel like you've achieved anything at all today, by arguing with people on the internet, using walls of text?

Clearly all of you have strong opinions, and are unwilling to change your own.

Before I argue with someone, I always ask myself "Does this person hold as strong as opinion as I do?"
If the answer is yes, dont bother arguing, do something that will be more rewarding instead.

Just something to consider before a long winded argument next time

In b4 Mr_S is gay, et al.

what is the fun in people who dont have strong opinion?

It is unfortunate to see the community so divided on this that we are willing to tear into each other.

I understand the risk v. reward in COH1 aspect of building design, and I really, really liked it in that game. However, COH2 has significant differences in level design, faction design, and diversity which this change will not take into account.

Had this been built into the game in 2013 or early in the game's life I would have been 100% for it. Since the design of the game widely departed from COH1 after this point I don't think it appropriate to try to bring back this mechanic.

The rally point system, while certainly imperfect adds a seriously important element in team games where teams can work together or split up as soon as the game starts, providing interesting strategy options. This will be completely removed by forcing spawns in buildings. To add to the benefit in 1v1 is small, since 2 factions gain literally 0 choice about base layout. If the problem is inconsistency in delay, simply move the starting off map point to the edge of the map so that units appear and near instantly enter the field.

Again, I understand the draw for both sides, but I am afraid at this stage in the COH2 life cycle this change does more harm than good. I am willing to test it, but my general feeling is to wait until COH3 to return this feature (as well as commander tech tree choices).

Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production. This would, I assume, solve the issue of arrival outside of control time. Another simpler option is to leave the units symbol greyed out until the unit is on the field to give the player a very obvious tool to know when the squad can be ordered to begin a task.

good points and even simpler way would be move the spawn point to the edge of the playable area in all maps, which some maps already have, sort of.

and i do agree with being able to order unit right away would be objectively better.

Another simple solution would be that every unit would run 10 seconds after their spawn.

Storm in a tea cup. Given the current and future level of support available to CoH2 it doesn't make sense to target minor issues like this.

This will alter the early game for a bit but eventually adjustments will be made to smooth out the balance. But at that point, what has been achieved? Two factions have the option to spawn their infantry in a slightly different place, meanwhile we've lost the flexibility offered by multiple spawn locations. Now whether this is a net gain is obviously not something we all agree on, but the cost of this is the time and resources put into implementing and balancing the change which could have been better spent on easier or more pressing fixes.

A better solution would be to address some of the shortcomings of the current spawn system. This could be achieved by allowing units to be given repair/build tasks while they're still outside the battle area, or putting a clear indicator on the unit shield to show that the unit isn't on the field yet and making a clear indicator when they do come online.

Don't like this change at all. Seems wholly unnecessary, and adds nothing, and raises issues of consistency that did not previously exist. Personally, I was hoping they would go in the other direction and finally get rid of bases altogether.

The ability to spawn from different map edges depending on the flow of battle was great, an excellent innovation to RTS conventions, and thematically appropriate. I see no gain here to compensate for this loss.

For those arguing that it's frustrating not to be able to give orders to units that have not yet fully entered the map, there is a perfectly easy solution - just don't put those units in the outliner until they actually cross the line.

Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production. This would, I assume, solve the issue of arrival outside of control time. Another simpler option is to leave the units symbol greyed out until the unit is on the field to give the player a very obvious tool to know when the squad can be ordered to begin a task.

I like this idea very much!