Login

russian armor

Why change the spawn system?

PAGES (9)down
24 Apr 2016, 21:33 PM
#101
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

At first I didn't quite like the offmap spawn of CoH2; later I just got used to it and it didn't matter at all.

Well, now I think that on-map spawn (strucuture spawn, watevs) is a bad idea, first and foremost because of USF's and UKF's ready-to-go base structures, which is also something that I didn't quite like back when they came up but just learned to live with it. If choosing base placement is so very important - and I think it can be - why the flower they managed to come up with rigid base structures.

I think that this should be a lesson - sometimes, you pick a choice that you can't really come back after that. Offmap spawn is one of them, with current game design.

EDIT: some typos
24 Apr 2016, 21:36 PM
#102
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

No one's even played the balance mod, but here we have 90 posts of incendiary theory crafting.

Inverse is right, any balance concerns will be short lived, unit build times can easily be adjusted. Of course when most people don't even read the notes fully they somehow think tanks and shit will be spawning from okw hqs.

This will speed up the early game, especially on large fuck off maps, and can potentially make new moves viable (mining krieg barracks entrance anyone?)


you think relic has thought of all the small ripples of affects that this will cause? which is also map dependent on maps that were designed FOR OLD SYSTEM? in maps with big bases, ost will outnumber USF in the first engagement even more.

oh but im sure relic considered all the angles.

when it comes down to the bare bone, whether you like the coh2 system or not depends on your personal preferences. As Inverse said, your reinforced members already come out of any base buildings so SOV and OST should've put their bases as far out as they could ANYWAY. Didn't see any risk v. reward plays involving those "strategic" choices yet.

This is patching in personal preferences. yes, that preference might be shared by the most but again, this change on a broader game that was not designed for this means risking potential problems just to satisfy your opinion that is neither more right nor better than the others.
24 Apr 2016, 22:56 PM
#103
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

To anyone who feels that the earliest stages of the game need tweaking, I invite them to play a few matches of my mod: Strategic Territory Points.

What you have there is a mod that works in conjunction with some modified official maps. (Links to all compatible maps are in the description of the mod in the Steam Workshop.)

For those who remember the original Company of Heroes 1's Angoville, Langres, Semois, (and Rails and Metal) I've replicated the resources to match their original incarnations. Just the changes in territory placement help change the motions of units in the opening stages of the game. (Do you want munis or fuel more, etc.) Placing more choice and strategy in cap order, and increasing the values of cutoff points will do more to infuse strategy into the early (and later) game than where a select few units spawn.

This week, especially in light of Siphon X's ESL map analysis I decided to adapt some CoH2 original maps in a similar fashion. Since I didn't have an original map to replicate, I adjusted as best I could to make a more dynamic playing field.

Pop cap and such is unaffected by the mod, just resources.

I have posted the mod and updates here in this thread, but I doubt many people check that forum.

I know it's a headache to use a tuning pack AND a special map, but seriously, I think it's worth pointing out how adjustments to maps, without adjusting a single unit or faction design, can change (and hopefully improve) gameplay for the better.
24 Apr 2016, 23:08 PM
#104
avatar of bingo12345

Posts: 304

I dont like this change. Call in advantage is instant production. Now this change will negate that.
25 Apr 2016, 01:10 AM
#105
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

I am in favor of this change.
25 Apr 2016, 02:58 AM
#106
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

I don't really feel qualified to judge the wisdom of this change. But there was one observation I wanted to make that relates to this change. With every patch lately, two things happen:

1. The factions become homogenous
2. The game gets more similar to CoH1.

I'm a big fan of both mirrored RTS games and the original CoH, but changes like this can't help but make me feel that something unique is slowly being lost.
25 Apr 2016, 11:35 AM
#107
avatar of MoerserKarL
Donator 22

Posts: 1108

I dont understand the whole notes. Does the new spawn system affect OKW trucks as well? (spawning from trucks on the battlefield)
25 Apr 2016, 14:25 PM
#108
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Apr 2016, 19:15 PMInverse

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.


This makes no sense if you actually think about what you're saying logically. Say you have to walk a unit for 15 seconds in order to get to where you need to build your T1. That means your first T1 unit is delayed by 15 seconds. However, once that unit is done being built, it appears at the T1 structure. If it had appeared off-map, it would have had to make up that 15 second walk itself anyways (actually it probably would have been longer, since off-map spawn points are usually fairly far behind HQ buildings). Your first unit's timing is a complete wash, and every subsequent unit hits the field 15 seconds quicker than it would have otherwise. There is absolutely zero downside for the player.

__________[HQ]------------------>T1 = 15 seconds
[SpawnPoint]----------------------->T1 = > 15 seconds





That's what makes it a strategic decision. Strategic decisions have consequences. Sheltering the player from strategic decisions and their consequences is one of the main reasons why CoH2 struggles as a strategy game.


None of this is even remotely relevant to the discussion or any of my points. These are map design issues that have no bearing on how units are fundamentally produced and fielded.


The first point is fair, but I'd argue that it is more a map design problem, just like your above complaints. Fixing shitty design with even shittier design is not a solution, it's a bandaid. The second point is intended behaviour. Players should be forced to make strategic decisions, and those strategic decisions should have consequences. If you fucked up your building placement, well, you look a gamble and it didn't pay off. Players should be forced to make those sorts of decisions, and they should impact the outcome of the game.


+100
25 Apr 2016, 14:25 PM
#109
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5



Or we don't break thats not broken.

Since the alpha of Coh2 no1 has ever complained that this system is broken/evil/you name it what it is.

#ADAPT

The community did it.

Maybe vcoh fanbois will do it #jesuisoffmapspawn

There were lots of reservations about the new spawn system during alpha/beta and when the game first came out. The reason people stopped caring was because these days most of the community has no experience with any other system (very evident from some of these replies), and the people who do have experience never imagined it would get changed because the benefits would be relatively minor. But the benefits are definitely there, and if Relic is willing to make the change there's no reason to discourage them from doing it.

On an unrelated note, the obsession with balance in this community is such a major deterrent to innovation. People have to realize that when it comes to major design changes such as this one, you have to look at a longer period of time than just a month or two. Any major design change is going to fuck with balance in the short term, but fundamentally change the game (for better or for worse) in the long term. That's what this debate should be about: whether this change is better or worse for the game in the long term, once the minor balance hiccups have been ironed out. Some people in this thread have brought up legitimate design issues related to this change (OKW trucks and map design implications for example) that absolutely need to be addressed. But if your only argument against this change is that it will screw up balance, you need to realize that you're taking a short-term view of a change meant to have long-term implications.
25 Apr 2016, 14:30 PM
#110
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

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.
25 Apr 2016, 14:41 PM
#111
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 713 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2016, 14:30 PMBudwise
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.


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 ?
25 Apr 2016, 14:44 PM
#112
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Think of this as a buff to the EFAs. They have to retreat squads to build these buildings. As compensation, they get their men on the field a few seconds faster. OKW is just special :)
25 Apr 2016, 15:00 PM
#113
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2016, 14:41 PMGiaA


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 ?


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?
25 Apr 2016, 15:03 PM
#114
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

Keep the salt coming bois very entertaining... :romeoHype:
25 Apr 2016, 15:05 PM
#115
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2016, 14:30 PMBudwise
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.


+1000
25 Apr 2016, 15:06 PM
#116
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

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.
25 Apr 2016, 15:09 PM
#117
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 466



Wut?

1. What risk???? Tell me how many times your base buildings got lost? Attacking a base is suicide in Coh. So much for that.

2. Where would you like to speed up the game? First tanks come out at 6-8 mins. Early-game is basicly dead.

3. Sure lets give OKW a huge buff by changing this spawn system, I want my Panther to pop out of the Schwerer's Flak Gun so I can no-skill wipe any attacking allied armor trying to kill my T4. Also, UKF and USF would be rekt with these changes.

Its a retarded change.


hahahaha on point man :banana:
25 Apr 2016, 15:11 PM
#118
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

On the topic of base design, I miss base rushing so much... I still don't understand Relic's obsession with totally killing this as a viable tactic. It was always super satisfying when someone camped hard on a side of Ango and you just go knock on their back door instead of slamming into a fortress of camp over and over.
25 Apr 2016, 15:30 PM
#119
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2016, 14:25 PMInverse

On an unrelated note, the obsession with balance in this community is such a major deterrent to innovation. People have to realize that when it comes to major design changes such as this one, you have to look at a longer period of time than just a month or two.

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.
25 Apr 2016, 15:31 PM
#120
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Apr 2016, 14:25 PMInverse

On an unrelated note, the obsession with balance in this community is such a major deterrent to innovation. People have to realize that when it comes to major design changes such as this one, you have to look at a longer period of time than just a month or two. Any major design change is going to fuck with balance in the short term, but fundamentally change the game (for better or for worse) in the long term. That's what this debate should be about: whether this change is better or worse for the game in the long term, once the minor balance hiccups have been ironed out. Some people in this thread have brought up legitimate design issues related to this change (OKW trucks and map design implications for example) that absolutely need to be addressed. But if your only argument against this change is that it will screw up balance, you need to realize that you're taking a short-term view of a change meant to have long-term implications.


all of this
PAGES (9)down
4 users are browsing this thread: 4 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

832 users are online: 832 guests
1 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48924
Welcome our newest member, gaugeeshelton
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM