Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

You said it. Everyone talks about "the community, the modders, the mapmakers, the OTHERS...", but who is willing to spend his time fixing it?
This is not directed to you, but for those wondering "why we don't get new maps"? Well, someone has to spend countless hours working for "you" to enjoy it. Relic won't bother so, unless you do it yourself or know a group of people willing to do so, then it's just useless rant.

For example: we don't have a list of good maps, maps which need rework and maps which are plain bad. Do we have any list of "good/potential" workshop maps? It's just ez to ask for things.

And you said it as well. If Relic is willing to address map issues and the map pool, then I am pretty sure that can be put together rather quickly and easily. God knows the hours I've put into world builder and mod tools over the years. A chance for any of it to come to fruition would be refreshing. I'm sure that sentiment might be shared.

But hey, there's only been years of effort on this website and forums discussing this matter, maps, and this topic. That energy has come and gone with this game. People burn out doing that work for nothing.

seems almost 50% of players like FRP and 50% dont like

Forward Retreat Points drastically reduce the time it takes for squads to get back on the field after being forced to retreat. So if you are forced to retreat your entire blob by getting suppressed by a machine gun, you’re not as punished as you should be. Without forward retreat points, mass retreats would be more punishing and players would be encouraged to use individual squads more instead of blindly blobbing around the map.

Forward Retreat Points drastically reduce the time it takes for squads to get back on the field after being forced to retreat. So if you are forced to retreat your entire blob by getting suppressed by a machine gun, you’re not as punished as you should be. Without forward retreat points, mass retreats would be more punishing and players would be encouraged to use individual squads more instead of blindly blobbing around the map.

Well, without FRP you are certainly being more punished for hard retreats due to being suppressed, not doubt there.

However, I'm not convinced that this would punish blobbers more. First up, as I mentioned earlier, the lack of a FRP also means that the person opposing the blob has far more issues to punish a retreating or reinforcing blob but barraging the reinforcement point. So, there goes one option to bleed the blob heavily.

Then the question is if higher costs for the retreat would lead to more or less blobbing. Two points on this:

• You say "blind blobbing". Well, the important part here is the "blind". Now, is it easier to scout for a blob or for multiple individual units?
  
• After veterancy kicks in and weapon upgrades become available, blobs can more and more just overwhelm suppression sources. If I blindly send 3 squads to three places, chances are they will quickly have to retreat because they run into something stronger or an MG. If I run around with a blob, well, single opposing squads are no problem, and MGs, well at least I have a increasingly good chance of overrunning that with enough firepower.
  

So...

Edit: I do agree though it might make the blobber think more about where to sent his blob, which is a plus (less headbutting as pigsoup put it).
Edit2: More downtime due to transitions and less exposure to indirect fire also means less MP bleed, less field presence so more blobbing?

Forward Retreat Points drastically reduce the time it takes for squads to get back on the field after being forced to retreat. So if you are forced to retreat your entire blob by getting suppressed by a machine gun, you’re not as punished as you should be. Without forward retreat points, mass retreats would be more punishing and players would be encouraged to use individual squads more instead of blindly blobbing around the map.

This is all true for sure.

But really continuously retreating your blob is achieving nothing and you still lose map presence; just not as much without your FRP.
In skilled games blobbing is not successful (or should not be). I think as players get better at micro they learn fast that blobbing doesn't pay. The only ways blobbing pays off is if the opponent doesn't know how to handle the blob or if the blob's units are just unbalanced to being with.

But really, what I have heard you yourself call this game "Micro: the game" we should try to discourage the blobbing mechanic period. Not having a FRP doesn't stop Sov players from blobbing Penals, so FRP removal will not fix this issue.

Can we stop considering removing FRP will suddenly make blob disappear or being less powerful. Ostheer and Soviet also blob efficiently.
And they are as much as effective than OKW, USF or Brit.

Today there is no established links between blobbing and FRP.
There is no established link between FRP and successful Blob.
We all know a single HMG cannot hold a blob managed with a minimum of micro so your single HMG will not perform any better with the removal of FRP.

Now there are many way to reduce the impact of FRP. There is no need for rocket scientists to find ways to reduce its impact on the game.

My only problem with FRP is with ONE.

USF: comes out late with major and needs ambulance to reinforce and heal.

Ambulance is very fragile, take that out no reinforce and heals. Kill the major, no retreat point. Also at the time you have these guys together, artillery will be out.

UKF: FRP provides weapon upgrades and came be upgraded with engineer's(doctoral). Can be built early as well as providing buffs to replacements.

No heals and fragile, royal engineer's can repair it quick through.

OKW: Can come extremely early, Sturdy and can upgrade with medics. Due to strums high repair rate, can be very hard to destroy early-mid.


Overall, USF has the short end of the stick because as soon and one or the other go, the FRP is useless while being extremely vulnerable to anything that is within range.

FRP just need to be more fragile in my opinion. Having sturdy retreat points that can have a Schwerer hq built to defend it with high repair rates is the problem.

This is in relation to team games.

Well I'm sure removing FRPs will help casual players deal with penal blobs.

Can we stop considering removing FRP will suddenly make blob disappear or being less powerful. Ostheer and Soviet also blob efficiently.
And they are as much as effective than OKW, USF or Brit.

Today there is no established links between blobbing and FRP.
There is no established link between FRP and successful Blob.
We all know a single HMG cannot hold a blob managed with a minimum of micro so your single HMG will not perform any better with the removal of FRP.

Now there are many way to reduce the impact of FRP. There is no need for rocket scientists to find ways to reduce its impact on the game.

i agree, there is no any link between blobbing and FRP.

How to detect blobbers 101:

i agree, there is no any link between blobbing and FRP.

I agree that FRPs have no place in this game and should be entirely removed asap from this game.

In vCoH, there existed almost no FRPs at all and everybody was fine with that. Once the brits have been added to vCoH, the shitstorm about their FRP and the resulting bren-blob meta was big, so I actually dont know why Relic decided to design all the DLC factions so FRP-based :/

Well, Brits in vCoH were kind of designed around blobbing. Blobbing with emplacements and a mobile HQ.

But I think that's worth noting, Brits had a mobile HQ and Captain retreat, neither of which was exactly a FRP. There were a lot of issues with how those functioned that isn't worth getting into.

Well, Brits in vCoH were kind of designed around blobbing. Blobbing with emplacements and a mobile HQ.

But I think that's worth noting, Brits had a mobile HQ and Captain retreat, neither of which was exactly a FRP. There were a lot of issues with how those functioned that isn't worth getting into.

And remember how cancerous everyone said brits were in coh1? Also, you could argue that their having an FRP of sorts (actually, 2, with the captain) facilitated that blobbing even more, especially in teamgames, where they were the only faction that could just head butt and mass retreat and be back so quickly.

Again, why you need a hard RETREAT POINT instead of MANUALLY soft retreating.

That's an extensive list of mostly great additions and changes and I’m not really arguing against your points. I'm arguing that the game does not need to remove any more features. We don't need entire reworks that take away the original features of factions (We had plenty of that with the OKW rework, for better or worse), we need balance tweaks and bug fixes. If bringing balance to each of the 5 factions while leaving their original concepts and designs in tact proves to be too daunting a task for the unofficial mod team, then they really have no business playing any role in the games balance. Period.

Hard retreats are required with factions who risk their STATIC assets by placing them in the field. This applies to both OKW and UKF. As for USF, their staying power decreases dramatically in the late game and they need to be able to sustain themselves better without having to retreat all the way back to base, it's what the faction was designed on (frequent and fast hit and run with more delicate units). As to the argument of soft retreating vs. hard retreating: There are times when both can serve the same purpose, but there are also times when soft retreating is not feasible whereas hard retreating is and vice versa.

Say what you will about FRPs being cheesy and how they shorten the time required to get back into the fight yada yada but that's only one side of the coin. Every one of the arguments FOR the removal of FRPs on this thread fail to bring up the disadvantages of them. Each one of the factions with FRPs can be punished severely if they are not smart with how/when/if they use their FRPs. There is no lack of indirect available for any of the factions to ensure that mass retreats to a FRP will not only possibly bleed the player for much of their MP, but also result in tech investments, squads or utility assets being lost in the process. For me personally, there is a lot of dynamic decision making on both the person with the FRP and the person playing against it. Simply removing the FRPs takes that element and any strategy tied to it away. No thanks.

I know it's a lot to ask of people who play this game, and especially a lot to ask of the people on this forum, but the constant bickering of things one particular player finds frustrating to play against just serves to stir up people's emotions and in most cases results in people making generalizations that miss half the point on many of the topics. Before calling for a removal of something that has been in the game since the launch of the WFA factions, you need to realize what that actually means and what effects it will have on the game in the future, and you need to think and really think critically as to whether this will solve the overall issue you're targeting (in this case blobbing and camping/staying power). We've already mutated one faction that had some pretty unique (albeit OP) concepts to be fairly similar to its EFA brother instead of taking the time to find a way to balance those features. If we keep going down this path we're just going to end up with more features removed and bland and incredibly similar factions.

And remember how cancerous everyone said brits were in coh1? Also, you could argue that their having an FRP of sorts (actually, 2, with the captain) facilitated that blobbing even more, especially in teamgames, where they were the only faction that could just head butt and mass retreat and be back so quickly.

lul, because you believe no one was blobbing with the vanilla factions before opposing front get release?

Do you really think blobbing requires a FRP to be effective. If you give a Half-track to OKW and USF, then they'll use it. And believe it or not, it is going to be worst vs good blobbers. You may get it easier vs trash blobbers - and I'm not even sure of that. But good blobbers, those who actually roll over you already will roll even harder cuz they'll reinforce on the field making their blob unbeatable - no need to retreat.

blobbing will happen with or without FRP, its happens because of 5 men sqauds of WFA, ever since penals got buffed, im seeing penals blobs in almost every team game yet soviets dont have FRP.

This is all true for sure.

But really continuously retreating your blob is achieving nothing and you still lose map presence; just not as much without your FRP.
In skilled games blobbing is not successful (or should not be). I think as players get better at micro they learn fast that blobbing doesn't pay. The only ways blobbing pays off is if the opponent doesn't know how to handle the blob or if the blob's units are just unbalanced to being with.

But really, what I have heard you yourself call this game "Micro: the game" we should try to discourage the blobbing mechanic period. Not having a FRP doesn't stop Sov players from blobbing Penals, so FRP removal will not fix this issue.

Here's how blobbing works with FRPs (especially early game OKW):
The blob comes and you successfully repel it, all squads are intact, but you've lost models across the board. Now, instead of having a fair time to lick your wounds... *poof* here's the blob again, complete with full squads. You're still down models, so you're out-manned at the get go. Say you repel it AGAIN, down more models and maybe retreated a squad all the way to HQ. Your squad(s) is still coming back, and you have half strength at the front and *poof* again, here's the blob with complete squads attacking en masse. Now you're done. Further, by the time the distances between their FRP and your HQ is equal, so retreat time is equal for both, well, they now own more of the map. All from A-move with a blob. No reason to flank or whatever, because with the FRP, they can recover faster and back in action sooner than you can.

lul, because you believe no one was blobbing with the vanilla factions before opposing front get release?

Do you really think blobbing requires a FRP to be effective. If you give a Half-track to OKW and USF, then they'll use it. And believe it or not, it is going to be worst vs good blobbers. You may get it easier vs trash blobbers - and I'm not even sure of that. But good blobbers, those who actually roll over you already will roll even harder cuz they'll reinforce on the field making their blob unbeatable - no need to retreat.

Of course people blobbed with the vanilla factions. I was pointing out the fact that there was particular hate towards the brits for blobbing (as well as other reasons), and blobbing and mass retreating as brits was much easier due to the significantly lower time spent off the field, which I think made people mad, for good reason.

Look at EFA. They have very easily accessible and somewhat inexpensive halftracks, but are you honestly about to tell me that EFA blobbers actually commonly use halftracks with their blobs? When's the last time anyone ever saw a penal blob or lmg gren blob backed up by an m5/sdkfz respectively? Or the (now extinct) hated double 1919 blobs? They had easily accessible call in halftracks and I don't think many if any blobbers ever used those either. You also fail to take into account suppression and grenades. Sure, he could reinforce his infantry under fire from an mg all day, but they aren't gonna do anything. Halftracks also aren't even that tough and can easily be destroyed by a TD or AT gun (if they don't get run over by the blob).

Here's how blobbing works with FRPs (especially early game OKW):
The blob comes and you successfully repel it, all squads are intact, but you've lost models across the board. Now, instead of having a fair time to lick your wounds... *poof* here's the blob again, complete with full squads. You're still down models, so you're out-manned at the get go. Say you repel it AGAIN, down more models and maybe retreated a squad all the way to HQ. Your squad(s) is still coming back, and you have half strength at the front and *poof* again, here's the blob with complete squads attacking en masse. Now you're done. Further, by the time the distances between their FRP and your HQ is equal, so retreat time is equal for both, well, they now own more of the map. All from A-move with a blob. No reason to flank or whatever, because with the FRP, they can recover faster and back in action sooner than you can.

Everyone loves to spin this magical scenario and they always use the posterchild of FRP, OKW. This argument might work in cases where the person fighting OKW doesn't have a clue about what other tools are available across tiers in literally any allied faction, but let me create my own scenario to show you how this could play out, specifically from USFs standpoint:

You don't counter the blob with your own blob. You let the blob move around the field together, while you split your units up and cap the rest of the map. Invest in suppression, whether it be a .50 cal or a quad, and force retreats as often as possible. Tech to captain (or don't and just get mortars), get pack howies, (also infantry doc has access to mortar ht which has access to white phosphorous, a tool that is especially useful for fighting against FRPs). Force retreats and prefire white- phosphorous /barrage combos at the retreat point and bleed your opponent. If they're smart, they'll switch their retreat point to their base and you likely have an unsupported truck to destroy.

Now you say, what about kubels? Can't they continue to cap the map while the blob moves around grouped across the map? Well, if the blob is truly scary, I doubt there was any MP to spare for a kubel after your opponent put out 3+ squads of volks, a FRP and medics. But if there was, each faction has their counterparts which all more or less shit on the kubel. The ironic thing is, the unofficial balance team wants to swap the Sturm starting unit for the kubel. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the scenario mentioned above.

The FRP is a risky investment, that's why you hardly see it used in top level 1v1 - it simply is not worth it in most cases. Go check the clip in trending of Von's FRP being shit on by DevM. That's one way of many that smart players handle those who want to take the risk of setting up their FRPs. And many of the arguments here has made it seem like an FRP basically hands you the game. I'd argue just the opposite, it's usually just a manpower/fuel trap for bad players.

When's the last time anyone ever saw a penal blob or lmg gren blob backed up by an m5/sdkfz respectively? Or the (now extinct) hated double 1919 blobs?

I did this just the other day, and it isn't uncommon. 1 MG into 4 grens and an HT and just pushed my opponent off the field in a 2v2 random against a premade of blobbers, 1 USF and 1 Soviet. I didn't necessarily blob, but all my units fit on the screen. All I did was move up to their base with the halftrack reinforcing losses, under covering mg fire until I was able to spam p4s. USF had his FRP which I punished more than once, and Sov player was blobbing his penals everywhere. My teammate was also Wehr. Just because you don't see it in whatever mode/level you're playing at doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And hearing you voice your opinion so strongly against an FRP and knowing that you think the above is rare/doesn’t happen at all gives me some insight into the type of mentalities that seem to be encouraging the removal of FRPs, which is concerning.

Snip

This is all true, but this blob is continuously achieving nothing and keeps coming back as fast as you yourself paint it does nothing but constantly bleed man power.

A single Kubal is not going to be an issue, any non starting unit will destroy it.

Blobbing just doesn't work. It doesn't win proper games against skilled opponents now so I don't know why it would be used as an argument to get rid of FRP.

Also, as mentioned: If you are losing to an OKW blob who has time to set up truck, buy medics, buy retreat point and have a Kubal capping points and not taking part in the blob, you have made mistakes. That is a 740MP investment in non combat units that you should have spent yourself.