Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

Why stop there Smith? Why not just make every faction have the same units accessible at the same tiers, and just reskin them for each faction. That sounds like a game you might want to play.

Seriously though, you shit on faction diversity so hard if you remove FRP. These factions we're essentially built on keeping their infantry in the field for different reasons. There are plenty of disadvantages already in place for banking on and camping a FRP.

You will create a balance nightmare when you remove them. It's unfortunate you've been given the keys to the balance-mobile, because you're gonna drive it straight off the fuckin bias-cliff. Wish I could say I didn't see this coming.

How is volkschrecks, rifle flamers, and blizzards faction diversity? And FRP has nothing to do with diversity either, since 3/5 factions have it.

How is volkschrecks, rifle flamers, and blizzards faction diversity? And FRP has nothing to do with diversity either, since 3/5 factions have it.

What do blizzards have to do with anything? They weren't faction features, and they weren't removed as a result of something the unofficial balance modders did. Also, I think taking a look at the definition of "diversity" might help you to understand what I was getting at. Google is probably hard for you, let me help:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/diversity

I think your understanding of the word is opposite of what it actually means. The fact a faction has something that the others do not makes that faction diverse from the others. Is it clear now?

If you're going to nitpick something, at least do it right. Not that any of this back and forth matters anymore, Relic already stated that they have no intentions implementing the current rendition of the unofficial balance patch at this time.

maybe you should look at this from another direction. you are the only one who is fixated in me specifically explaining the difference between gameplay and balance.

You made this thread and distinctly said it's about gameplay and not balance. It's entirely up to you to define both terms. SHould I honestly ask everyone except you what those two mean in relation to eachother?

maybe its you who don't get it. This site and the official forum has 'balance' and 'gameplay' sections and NO ONE ever popped up to ask "what's the difference?" It is implied that they are in complimenting relationship to each other but they are two separate things. It is expected of every user in every gaming forum to be aware of the distinction without explanation.

You're spending an awful lot of time talking about how people should know the answer, rather than providing the answer. This all sounds like ultimately you don't even know the distinctions between the two in the first place. If that's the case, you should just say it.

You can see why I am baffled by your such insistence on this "issue". On top of this weird categorisation game you continue to pursue, in your replys, you continue to choose a tone that implies I am purposely trying to duck your question on the "issue" due to some nefarious reason.

I know why now: you expect people to know the answer to a question you know nothing about.
Let's try it simply now: do you know the difference between the two terms?
If yes why aren't you saying it? Are you not then purposing ducking the question?
If not, then why aren't you just saying that either? Perhaps now you understand why I might think you're avoiding it throughout the thread.

It is pretty strongly implied headbutting means the other part of CoH, fighting....

Soooo, is that supposed to mean that you're just too proud to admit it just meant fighting in general? Sheesh that wasn't so hard on your ego, wasn't it? Gameplay meaning mechanics and power level meaning balance, is that what you wanted to mean?

that is all i am saying, I want to remove FRP not because it gives unfair advantages. I want to remove FRP because to me, and apparently slightly more than half of the community, CoH2 is about engagements, lull, maneuvering, thinking about cost of hard retreats, soft retreats, being aggressive, being passive - all the things i have mentioned before, which are all basically descriptions of gameplay mechanics. The mechanics that I believe gets negatively influenced due to one WFA+ gameplay mechanic, FRP.

And like I have stated, FRP comes along with many things, and I think people are just looking at FRP as if it's the only reason why unfair advantage exists.
I can also make the exact same argument on removing suppression altogether because since COH2 is all about engagements, lulls, manoeuvres and retreats and that suppression negatively influences it. This can also be use to support keeping blizzards in winter maps.
But then again Relic just had everyone gain access to HMGs instead, so maybe as precedent giving FRP to everyone might be the better idea? Not that I agreed with MG34 being non-doctrinal.

Not that any of this back and forth matters anymore, Relic already stated that they have no intentions implementing the current rendition of the unofficial balance patch at this time.

Sigh don't be too confident on that snippet. Relic has taken up miragefla and other unofficial (are they really?) mods' ideas into live game in the past. I suspect much of the opposition to the mod ideas come from the perception of the group having undue influence on Relic and their decisions on making patches.

There wouldn't be any arguments like these at all if that weren't the case, because we'd know its just going to stay as a mod. But of course we all know what happened before: that mod became live game.

it's like you are asking me to define what apple is...

I say "huh?"

and you say "well, you could've meant the yellow one, red one, green... big or small, from california, florida or china..."

and I say "its my word vs yours"

and you say "word? what game are you playing? you won't trick me".....................

You made this thread and distinctly said it's about gameplay and not balance. It's entirely up to you to define both terms. SHould I honestly ask everyone except you what those two mean in relation to eachother?

You're spending an awful lot of time talking about how people should know the answer, rather than providing the answer. This all sounds like ultimately you don't even know the distinctions between the two in the first place. If that's the case, you should just say it.

I know why now: you expect people to know the answer to a question you know nothing about.
Let's try it simply now: do you know the difference between the two terms?
If yes why aren't you saying it? Are you not then purposing ducking the question?
If not, then why aren't you just saying that either? Perhaps now you understand why I might think you're avoiding it throughout the thread.

Soooo, is that supposed to mean that you're just too proud to admit it just meant fighting in general? Sheesh that wasn't so hard on your ego, wasn't it? Gameplay meaning mechanics and power level meaning balance, is that what you wanted to mean?

And like I have stated, FRP comes along with many things, and I think people are just looking at FRP as if it's the only reason why unfair advantage exists.
I can also make the exact same argument on removing suppression altogether because since COH2 is all about engagements, lulls, manoeuvres and retreats and that suppression negatively influences it. This can also be use to support keeping blizzards in winter maps.
But then again Relic just had everyone gain access to HMGs instead, so maybe as precedent giving FRP to everyone might be the better idea? Not that I agreed with MG34 being non-doctrinal.


Sigh don't be too confident on that snippet. Relic has taken up miragefla and other unofficial (are they really?) mods' ideas into live game in the past. I suspect much of the opposition to the mod ideas come from the perception of the group having undue influence on Relic and their decisions on making patches.

There wouldn't be any arguments like these at all if that weren't the case, because we'd know its just going to stay as a mod. But of course we all know what happened before: that mod became live game.

Ughhhhh...



Nee, it's about gameplay more than balance. p makes a lot of sense. FRP really spoils a couple of great CoH2 features. Instead of insta-arguing whatever point is made and being aggressive nd offensive, why not actually think about the suggestions.


BALANCE: making sure power is evenly distributed across all factions, taking into account the times that units appear, how much they cost, etc.
EG a Raketen that kills inf models and fires 1 round a second is unbalanced. It would bleed too much manpower at range and be difficult to kill. It would provide an unfair advantage for OKW vs other armies.

GAMEPLAY: Options available to players for strategic and tactical decisions. Game mechanics, ie suppression, retreat, AoE, garrisons, firing arcs, flanking, etc.
EG Raketen can penetrate armour but small arms can't (compare to original Command and Conquer where any unit can kill any unit)

I hope that's clear now. You should listen to pigsoup. He's more experienced and better versed in the game. I mean, if you a 1000 forum posts but don't know the difference between gameplay and balance, you should stop talking and start listening.

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.

So you're saying you weren't blobbing, right? And being ranked what you are, I'm guessing you don't blob and have a good handle on the game. So why is that example relevant to what I was saying? Not very many blobbers use halftracks was my original point, and you said, "no, but I used a halftrack the other day," and then for whatever reason jumped to the conclusion that I'm at such a low level people never build halftracks. Hardcore blobbers that you sometimes see in teamgames (like that soviet you mentioned in your example) don't tend to use halftracks behind their blob. That statement wasn't refuted or challenged at all by your example of your use of a halftracks, it's just completely irrelevant.

What do blizzards have to do with anything? They weren't faction features, and they weren't removed as a result of something the unofficial balance modders did. Also, I think taking a look at the definition of "diversity" might help you to understand what I was getting at. Google is probably hard for you, let me help:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/diversity

I think your understanding of the word is opposite of what it actually means. The fact a faction has something that the others do not makes that faction diverse from the others. Is it clear now?

If you're going to nitpick something, at least do it right. Not that any of this back and forth matters anymore, Relic already stated that they have no intentions implementing the current rendition of the unofficial balance patch at this time.

First of all, can we chill a little? Remember, this is a forum for a videogame. I'll take my share of the blame for the current adversarial tone, but let's cut it back a bit, yeah?

That being said, in the post that you quoted, smith talked about rifle flamers, volkschrecks, and blizzards, which is why I asked what they had to do with faction diversity because in your reply, you complained that faction diversity is/will be going out the window. I would argue that those were the removal of stupid features. My point about FRPs is that while it's not universal, like cover, it's in over half the factions so it's not exactly unique, and taking it out wouldn't really hurt the "flavor" of any faction either, so I don't exactly see how removing it is "shitting on faction diversity".

Nee, it's about gameplay more than balance. p makes a lot of sense. FRP really spoils a couple of great CoH2 features. Instead of insta-arguing whatever point is made and being aggressive and offensive, why not actually think about the suggestions.

I have read the suggestions. I also made some.

And let the OP define his own terms. Unless he agrees concisely, it's going to be your word versus his.

Gameplay and balance may not be the same thing, but they are certainly so intertwined that you cannot seriously argue that a mechanic, especially one that is exclusive to one or more factions, can be discussed without inevitably talking about balance. It doesn't matter what you say about how it's gameplay and not balance, altering or removing FRP affects both. There's honestly no point trying to have a discussion that tries to exclude consideration of either one.

it's like you are asking me to define what apple is...

I say "huh?"

and you say "well, you could've meant the yellow one, red one, green... big or small, from california, florida or china..."

and I say "its my word vs yours"

and you say "word? what game are you playing? you won't trick me".....................

When you could have said "sorry I meant red apple." Rather than playing dumb, or smartass.

But at least now I know your game.

My answer then is yes it is beneficial to gameplay.

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

Blobs came back faster to the battlefield f you have FRP, because they spend less time retreating and then coming back.

This gives the other side which is defending against blobs less time to regain ground once they force blob to retreat.

FRP promotes blobbers because you can come back to the field much faster than without it.

Don't you agree ?

...
When you could have said "sorry I meant red apple." Rather than playing dumb, or smartass.

But at least now I know your game.

My answer then is yes it is beneficial to gameplay.

i have no idea why i would be sorry.

apple was an example. with your such question on the "issue", I could not just say "red". But i did try to break it down to the 4 words phrase "mechanics v. power level"... which you chose to completely ignore. It's ok if you said, "well, that is wrong" or "that is disagreeable". You completely ignored the part where I use kubels to indicated my point of reference and the conclusion i extracted from it.

I went over the analogy at least twice and maybe thrice... I tried my best, maybe it is weird to put so much effort into a mere part of a post but whatever.

It is ok if you thought that was a bad analogy - then you should tell me that instead of keep telling me i am trying to duck the "issue"... It would've made more sense if you argued my explanation was not good enough since CLEARLY, whether successfully or not, I did try to play by your rule by trying to provide the answer to your question multiple times.

---------------

gameplay vs. balance.... they are not the terms I get to choose what they mean. i don't get to choose that Kuble overperforming is a gameplay issue however hard I try.

these are vocabularies that already have their meaning set in every gaming community. again, I can prove that this is indeed the case since every gaming forum that is worth a salt have separate balance and gameplay sections. these terms are not dynamics terms that change their meaning.

Blobs came back faster to the battlefield f you have FRP, because they spend less time retreating and then coming back.

This gives the other side which is defending against blobs less time to regain ground once they force blob to retreat.

FRP promotes blobbers because you can come back to the field much faster than without it.

Don't you agree ?

No because you can blob with a HT behind. Maybe it is easier to blob with the FRP but blob will definitively not disappear with the removal of FRP.

No because you can blob with a HT behind. Maybe it is easier to blob with the FRP but blob will definitively not disappear with the removal of FRP.

The huge difference is that HT blob can't break suppression - the intended blob counter.

You completely ignored the part where I use kubels to indicated my point of reference and the conclusion i extracted from it.

That's because I have no choice but to assume that's just another one of your poor analogies.

I went over the analogy at least twice and maybe thrice... I tried my best, maybe it is weird to put so much effort into a mere part of a post but whatever.

You have pretty much admitted more than once that your choice of words is quite poor. That might explain everything.

Sigh let's just agree that your poor communications skills aren't going to assist in defining the term, and get back to topic, shall we?

FRP is beneficial to gameplay because it allows factions to play differently than two others. You might think its existence might be a negative influence, but I say that removing it does at least two more negatives:
- It forces you to play those factions more like the other factions
- Forces you to redesign said factions (and as EFA mod shows, directly contributes to first negative) for balance reasons, because FRP is a rather important element of OKW, USF and UKF gameplay in certain scenarios.

There are conversely many other ideas thrown up by people to make FRP reduce balance implications and make it a more positive gameplay element. An example being that keeping FRP toggled incurs income penalty, just like Tiger Ace and the old resource transfer mechanic. Someone also mentioned a cooldown between toggling, so micromanaging timing of cooldown will factor whenever you want FRP activated. This can also just apply to one faction and not all three.
You can even use the "Halt Retreat" button from Ardennes Assault where retreating forces will cease retreating wherever they are.
CoH1 Retreat to Captain can also be replicated, where the separate ability has a lengthy cooldown so individual units cannot liberally retreat to FRPs.
These ideas not only address the FRP issue but adds more positive gameplay elements because if you add different methods to each of the three factions, you're adding diversity while also making FRP less of a cheese tactic. I'm certainly not going try to keep retreating blobs when doing so means I live with a gimped economy for much of the game, or the button is on cooldown because I failed to save it for the right opportunity.

My personal opinion, as 4 on 4 player, is, that FRP is not right innovation to the gameplay. FRP devaluated meaning of retreating and flanking manoeuvres. Alos, it helps to correct player tactical mistakes to much, if he no-brain attack HMG or got overplayed by his opponent.

If all faction got this, it will more negative affect the gameplay and even more devaluate right retreating and skill in flanking and oveplaying your opponent.

From the other hand, this abillity can stay in the game, if reviewed in some better way, and all faction will get access to it in the same time.

I have read the suggestions. I also made some.

And let the OP define his own terms. Unless he agrees concisely, it's going to be your word versus his.

Gameplay and balance may not be the same thing, but they are certainly so intertwined that you cannot seriously argue that a mechanic, especially one that is exclusive to one or more factions, can be discussed without inevitably talking about balance. It doesn't matter what you say about how it's gameplay and not balance, altering or removing FRP affects both. There's honestly no point trying to have a discussion that tries to exclude consideration of either one.

When you could have said "sorry I meant red apple." Rather than playing dumb, or smartass.

But at least now I know your game.

My answer then is yes it is beneficial to gameplay.

I agree they are intertwined. I still think we are unable to analyse each separately to a certain extent.

Do you agree with my definitions? Would you like to propose edits?

In what way do you think FRP benefits gameplay? Other than offering diversity as diversity isn't a goal in itself. Please explain.

The huge difference is that HT blob can't break suppression - the intended blob counter.

+1

It's also not that hard to force back a halftrack once you have tanks and/or TDs.

[...]

From the other hand, this abillity can stay in the game, if reviewed in some better way, and all faction will get access to it in the same time.

For example - USF Captain's "On me!" ability.

....

FRP is beneficial to gameplay because it allows factions to play differently than two others. You might think its existence might be a negative influence, but I say that removing it does at least two more negatives:
- It forces you to play those factions more like the other factions
- Forces you to redesign said factions (and as EFA mod shows, directly contributes to first negative) for balance reasons, because FRP is a rather important element of OKW, USF and UKF gameplay in certain scenarios.

There are conversely many other ideas thrown up by people to make FRP reduce balance implications and make it a more positive gameplay element. An example being that keeping FRP toggled incurs income penalty, just like Tiger Ace and the old resource transfer mechanic. Someone also mentioned a cooldown between toggling, so micromanaging timing of cooldown will factor whenever you want FRP activated. This can also just apply to one faction and not all three.
You can even use the "Halt Retreat" button from Ardennes Assault where retreating forces will cease retreating wherever they are.
CoH1 Retreat to Captain can also be replicated, where the separate ability has a lengthy cooldown so individual units cannot liberally retreat to FRPs.
These ideas not only address the FRP issue but adds more positive gameplay elements because if you add different methods to each of the three factions, you're adding diversity while also making FRP less of a cheese tactic. I'm certainly not going try to keep retreating blobs when doing so means I live with a gimped economy for much of the game, or the button is on cooldown because I failed to save it for the right opportunity.

ok let's put that behind us.

sure FRP gives the 3 factions diversity compared to the vcoh2 ones. but since there can be either good diversity or bad one, that in itself is not really an argument. which goes for generalisation argument.

the need for redesign is completely hypothetical. removing the FRPs will create imbalance for sure since the live version is currently balanced with FRPs in mind. So if we remove FRPs, all need to be done is, imo, increase health of OKW MEdHQ and maybe brit one, so it is more viable soft retreat. as far as USF ambo in concerned, it can move and heal and can come in during early games already, so it is good enough already.

this seems much simpler than the suggestions people have came up with are really the half measures between keeping FRP as they are now and completely removing them.

-------------------

The bold part is a weird one. Not on your part but on others. The team games have been balanced around FRPs for last 3 years. And I'd say team games balance are best right now, in my opinion (if you disagree, the next part won't make sense). And as far as I can tell people suggesting some sort of mid way solutions are proposing nerf to the FRPs without compensations elsewhere when things are already balanced right now.

In what way do you think FRP benefits gameplay? Other than offering diversity as diversity isn't a goal in itself. Please explain.

And why is diversity not or, cannot or should not be a goal in itself? Please explain that first. Because otherwise, Relic should have been better off designing Ostheer clones factions.
Diversity was and is a very big reason why people like me buy DLC.

sure FRP gives the 3 factions diversity compared to the vcoh2 ones. but since there can be either good diversity or bad one, that in itself is not really an argument. which goes for generalisation argument.

And your view that FRP can potentially influence the game in a negative way is neither a good or bad one either, so it's not an argument, either.
But at least diversity is a fact, not a hypothetical. Not all factions have it, and the ones that do do it differently. The result, and part of the design, is you don't play each faction like you would with Ostheer. That is plain fact.

the need for redesign is completely hypothetical. removing the FRPs will create imbalance for sure since the live version is currently balanced with FRPs in mind. So if we remove FRPs, all need to be done is, imo, increase health of OKW MEdHQ and maybe brit one, so it is more viable soft retreat. as far as USF ambo in concerned, it can move and heal and can come in during early games already, so it is good enough already.

Your opinion is also entirely hypothetical. I played the EFA mod, and the only way to make up for lack of FRP for OKW is if HQ truck had like double health, which of course is ridiculous given what it is supposed to be. This isn't some simple problem with a simple fix. Soft retreat might not be a problem in small maps where travel distance is negligible, but can you say the same thing with large maps?

this seems much simpler than the suggestions people have came up with are really the half measures between keeping FRP as they are now and completely removing them.

We don't need simple measures. We need ones that satisfy all customers.

The bold part is a weird one. Not on your part but on others. The team games have been balanced around FRPs for last 3 years. And I'd say team games balance are best right now, in my opinion (if you disagree, the next part won't make sense). And as far as I can tell people suggesting some sort of mid way solutions are proposing nerf to the FRPs without compensations elsewhere when things are already balanced right now.

And that is probably where the biggest difference lies: in team games any particular FRP point isn't going to be some powerful match saver because the combined might of artillery attacks from multiple players can render the FRP advantages of one or more players moot. This is more or less basic scenario in maps like Sittard where the enemy bombards your FRP position and punishes you for using FRP with regularity. If you pay attention to it your battlefield effectiveness is weakened (Sturmpioniers repairing T2 truck means no panzerschreck support), and if you ignore it you risk losing the FRP investment. OKW has it worse due to being stationary, but USF has fragile units to make it work. This doesn't happen in a s1v1 match since there is only one player per side.

1. And why is diversity not or, cannot or should not be a goal in itself? Please explain that first. Because otherwise, Relic should have been better off designing Ostheer clones factions.
Diversity was and is a very big reason why people like me buy DLC.

2. And your view that FRP can potentially influence the game in a negative way is neither a good or bad one either, so it's not an argument, either.
But at least diversity is a fact, not a hypothetical. Not all factions have it, and the ones that do do it differently. The result, and part of the design, is you don't play each faction like you would with Ostheer. That is plain fact.

3. Your opinion is also entirely hypothetical. I played the EFA mod, and the only way to make up for lack of FRP for OKW is if HQ truck had like double health, which of course is ridiculous given what it is supposed to be. This isn't some simple problem with a simple fix. Soft retreat might not be a problem in small maps where travel distance is negligible, but can you say the same thing with large maps?

4. We don't need simple measures. We need ones that satisfy all customers.


5. And that is probably where the biggest difference lies: in team games any particular FRP point isn't going to be some powerful match saver because the combined might of artillery attacks from multiple players can render the FRP advantages of one or more players moot. This is more or less basic scenario in maps like Sittard where the enemy bombards your FRP position and punishes you for using FRP with regularity. If you pay attention to it your battlefield effectiveness is weakened (Sturmpioniers repairing T2 truck means no panzerschreck support), and if you ignore it you risk losing the FRP investment. OKW has it worse due to being stationary, but USF has fragile units to make it work. This doesn't happen in a s1v1 match since there is only one player per side.

1. because either can be good or bad.

2. because that isn't my argument. that is my stance.

3.4. your last post heavily implied you are not in favour of heavy redesigning. so i gave simpler suggestion which you keep insulting and whatever. soft retreat is hard. so if brit and OKW FRP lost the "R" part, they would have to be more forward to be effective, so higher health. which is a phenomenon that happens exactly to USF currently - early ambo usage vs. late game ambo usage when major is out.

5. yep i agree.

For example - USF Captain's "On me!" ability.

Please dont do this. Or before you sugggest this try figting against 4 bar rifles + captain with on methe. You supress them, he removes the supression on top of acc bonus. You want to fight them with normal forces, captain uses on me and buffed rifles beat you once again.

Its freaking hard to fight against rifle blob with on me until you get AI tank.