Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

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.




.

In that case, it would be possible to have a faction that gets tier 3 tanks at tier 1.Because it's diverse.

You see, diversity cannot be a goal in itself or else we would end up with all kinds of nonsense. In the name of diversity.

So no, diversity is not a goal in itself. It is there to serve the higher principle of enjoyable gameplay. And the fact that FRP reduces the enjoyability of gameplay for those factions without it, or indeed for those players who hate facing blobs and the other knock-on effects, means it should be examined under the philosophy of "does this improve gameplay or spoil it?"

My answer to that is it spoils it and enables cheesy thoughtless strategy.If you enjoy cheesy thoughtless blob strategy, that is your choice. Ultimately it will come down to which group Relic value more. Blobbers or Strategists.

You see, diversity cannot be a goal in itself or else we would end up with all kinds of nonsense. In the name of diversity.

This is gibberish.

So no, diversity is not a goal in itself. It is there to serve the higher principle of enjoyable gameplay.

This is true, there are lots of good RTS games with good diversity. In fact when this game went into beta I thought it was going to be a boring rip off compared to the free COHO before hand; because it was bland... When the USF/OKW entered I felt it got far more fun.

And the fact that FRP reduces the enjoyability of gameplay for those factions without it

So rather than remove it and make the game that much more bland, why not just make it doctrinal for the teams that don't have (like with a correctly balanced Sov FHQ and an expensive doctrinal upgrade to a command bunker for OST.

If blobs are your concern lock all FRP abilities behind T4 purchase so they come late when blobbing should be easily dealt with. The Sov don't have one currently and team games are poisoned by Penal blobs right now, so FRP is clearly not the reason for blobs.

If FRP go, Major will be a nearly worthless purchase except for those that are at the very top of the USF skill player base and most OKW trucks will just sit at base totally voiding their point.

In that case, it would be possible to have a faction that gets tier 3 tanks at tier 1.Because it's diverse.

You see, diversity cannot be a goal in itself or else we would end up with all kinds of nonsense. In the name of diversity.

I don't think that that's a good point. Think about it this way: Take two perfectly balanced games. In one of them all factions play exactly the same, in the other the gameplay for each faction is different. Which game would you prefer?

It's fine if you say you don't care and you would enjoy both equally. But you have to at least admit that a lot of people will favor the second game over the first. Why? Because they enjoy the gameplay more with diversity. I guess everybody will agree that diversity won't trump everything else. But then I'd say that most people would favor a balanced and divers solution over an only balanced solution, no?

Blobbers or Strategists.

I'll tackle the first word first. As as I wrote somewhere on page 5 in response to Callum, I'm not convinced that Blobbing an FRP are as intertwined as some people feel they are. Maybe you can address my points there?

Or, conversely, to look at this post:

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.

No doubt, that's frustrating. Let me tell another (totally fictional) story:

So, you set up this nice, defensive position. In comes a RM squad and got easily suppressed so they had to retreat. *poof* here's the RM again, this time he brought two other squads that tried to flank the MG. Luckily, you expected that move and repositioned the MG, so he was forced of again, but the MG lost two crewmembers. Barely managed to set up an MG bunker when the squads came again, but he didn't have anything to deal with the bunker so he had to retreat again. Just a few second later he came back, this time with a bazooka squad that came in the right angle. They were able to take out the bunker and force me off the field. If he wouldn't have had the FRP, the MG could have been recrewed to full between waves...

Or, in other words: FRP are an advantage for blobbers as well as people that properly smoke and flank. And I really doubt that blobbing will become less pronounced with FRP removed; it might actually have the opposite effect (see my previous post). The last blob I encountered was a Penal PTRS blob, so...

If the argument is that "OKW FRP is too strong/comes to early", FRPs are a nobrainer/have to little downsides, or what not: Well, I would mostly agree, but I'd consider those balance issues, not gameplay.

Now, on to the other word, "Strategists": I can agree with your description of "gameplay" that you give some posts earlier. As you noted, "gameplay" encompasses a long list of things. I have the impression that we have this discussion because the importance of things on this list is very subjective.

If the key thing for you is unit micro, I can totally see why you feel that FRPs are detrimental to gameplay because they reduce the penalty for a mismicro.

However, I'd say microing your units is not a part of the strategical aspect of this game. Strategy would more entail stuff like the commander choice, tech and build orders and, yes, a decisions like: Do I set up an FRP, when and where? So, I'd argue that a lot of the literal "Strategist" would actually feel like some element they can strategize about would be taken away with the removal of the FRP; so the removal would be detrimental to their flavor of gameplay.

snip

Or simply use a half-track or bunker to reinforce on the field...

The frp-blob connection I think hinges entirely on the following: a mass retreat on a blob is a desirable goal. An frp reduces the impact of this outcome by reducing the time the blob is off the field.

That is the situation people are freaking out about and are trying to address. As far as I can tell that is all.

I don't think that that's a good point. Think about it this way: Take two perfectly balanced games. In one of them all factions play exactly the same, in the other the gameplay for each faction is different. Which game would you prefer?

It's fine if you say you don't care and you would enjoy both equally. But you have to at least admit that a lot of people will favor the second game over the first. Why? Because they enjoy the gameplay more with diversity. I guess everybody will agree that diversity won't trump everything else. But then I'd say that most people would favor a balanced and divers solution over an only balanced solution, no?



I'll tackle the first word first. As as I wrote somewhere on page 5 in response to Callum, I'm not convinced that Blobbing an FRP are as intertwined as some people feel they are. Maybe you can address my points there?

Or, conversely, to look at this post:



No doubt, that's frustrating. Let me tell another (totally fictional) story:



Or, in other words: FRP are an advantage for blobbers as well as people that properly smoke and flank. And I really doubt that blobbing will become less pronounced with FRP removed; it might actually have the opposite effect (see my previous post). The last blob I encountered was a Penal PTRS blob, so...

If the argument is that "OKW FRP is too strong/comes to early", FRPs are a nobrainer/have to little downsides, or what not: Well, I would mostly agree, but I'd consider those balance issues, not gameplay.

Now, on to the other word, "Strategists": I can agree with your description of "gameplay" that you give some posts earlier. As you noted, "gameplay" encompasses a long list of things. I have the impression that we have this discussion because the importance of things on this list is very subjective.

If the key thing for you is unit micro, I can totally see why you feel that FRPs are detrimental to gameplay because they reduce the penalty for a mismicro.

However, I'd say microing your units is not a part of the strategical aspect of this game. Strategy would more entail stuff like the commander choice, tech and build orders and, yes, a decisions like: Do I set up an FRP, when and where? So, I'd argue that a lot of the literal "Strategist" would actually feel like some element they can strategize about would be taken away with the removal of the FRP; so the removal would be detrimental to their flavor of gameplay.

I didn't say that diversity "wasn't an issue at all". I said it was a much lower priority than balance.

Using your example, if there were 2 games, 1 with perfect balance but identical gameplay for factions, the other with horrible balance but diverse gameplay. Which would you play?


Possiby neither But what I'm trying to say is balance comes first and saying "this feature makes the game diverse" does not mean that the feature is automatically good. If the feature spoils balance,it should be reconsidered. That is all. Diversity is great and interesting but not when it comes at the cost of balance.

This is gibberish.


This is true, there are lots of good RTS games with good diversity. In fact when this game went into beta I thought it was going to be a boring rip off compared to the free COHO before hand; because it was bland... When the USF/OKW entered I felt it got far more fun.


So rather than remove it and make the game that much more bland, why not just make it doctrinal for the teams that don't have (like with a correctly balanced Sov FHQ and an expensive doctrinal upgrade to a command bunker for OST.

If blobs are your concern lock all FRP abilities behind T4 purchase so they come late when blobbing should be easily dealt with. The Sov don't have one currently and team games are poisoned by Penal blobs right now, so FRP is clearly not the reason for blobs.

If FRP go, Major will be a nearly worthless purchase except for those that are at the very top of the USF skill player base and most OKW trucks will just sit at base totally voiding their point.

Your inability to understand a perfectly cogent sentence does not make it gibberish. Replying "this is gibberish" instead of "please explain what you mean" is very childish and leads me to believe you are not worth talking to at all.

In fact all your posts really just say "I LOVE THIS FEATURE AND WILL NOT RECONSIDER MY POSITION!" So, happy blobbing, happy Britting, you're not worth talking to at all.

I didn't say that diversity "wasn't an issue at all". I said it was a much lower priority than balance.

Using your example, if there were 2 games, 1 with perfect balance but identical gameplay for factions, the other with horrible balance but diverse gameplay. Which would you play?


Possiby neither But what I'm trying to say is balance comes first and saying "this feature makes the game diverse" does not mean that the feature is automatically good. If the feature spoils balance,it should be reconsidered. That is all. Diversity is great and interesting but not when it comes at the cost of balance.

Very well written Bulgakov

+1

Very well written Bulgakov

+1

Make that +2

Diversity cannot be a goal, because it can be either good or bad? You can say that for literally everything.
But I suppose I need to point out that well-balanced diversity is good, and not the kind of OKW gets Jacksons sort of diversity. But then I suppose not everyone's educated, or sensible for that matter.

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.

I'm not in favour of heavy redesigning if it's done for and in the specific in the interest of a smaller minority of the playerbase. IMO the damage Relic has done to the game has been partly due to that. Unless of course my perception is wring and that objectively the data clearly indicate that the game has far more players than before because of them (and not, say, heavily discounted summer sales).
OKW is supposed to be "forward" with their HQ trucks. FRP provides that. In larger maps allied halftracks can fill the gap but that obviously relies entirely on the good coordination efforts of an Ostheer teammate.

This does lead me to a tertiary dea: making that third Axis faction everyone is complaining about that melds both Ostheer and OKW elements to not require FRP.

In that case, it would be possible to have a faction that gets tier 3 tanks at tier 1. Because it's diverse.

You're correct it would be more diverse, but it would hardly be balanced. You won't see me seriously making such suggestions for that reason. That is also why I oppose removing FRP: whatever you can say about its effects for gameplay it will also affect balance as well.

You see, diversity cannot be a goal in itself or else we would end up with all kinds of nonsense. In the name of diversity.

Wrong. Like everything in life it needs to be reasonable. I personally thought the divesrity of doctirnal MG34s for OKW was okay for gameplay since they originally had Kubels and flaktrack for the job, but the balance was off. That's a case of diversity at the cost of balance.
Would you prefer all kind of nonsense in the name of balance? Or all kinds of nonsense in the name of gameplay instead of diversity? You wouldn't you'd want reasonable proportions.

So no, diversity is not a goal in itself. It is there to serve the higher principle of enjoyable gameplay. And the fact that FRP reduces the enjoyability of gameplay for those factions without it, or indeed for those players who hate facing blobs and the other knock-on effects, means it should be examined under the philosophy of "does this improve gameplay or spoil it?"
My answer to that is it spoils it and enables cheesy thoughtless strategy.If you enjoy cheesy thoughtless blob strategy, that is your choice. Ultimately it will come down to which group Relic value more. Blobbers or Strategists.

And my answer to that is you're throwing baby out with the bathwater. If FRP has many drawbacks for its usage (and there isn't depending on the map and size), is it because of FRP itself or other factors? Removing FRP may well be just removing a symptom, not the actual problem that it exacerbates. In this case, cheesy tactics and blobbing. FRP should be a strategy with a double edge, as with everything else like holding back resources for tanks at cost of early game initiative.

Considering DoW3, Relic values the idiot that shells out money for content more than either. Going by that logic FRP would actually be pretty high on their list. But then again, retreat is replaced with Recall, which is even more cheesy.

I don't think that that's a good point. Think about it this way: Take two perfectly balanced games. In one of them all factions play exactly the same, in the other the gameplay for each faction is different. Which game would you prefer?

I believe he was just arguing from the point of absuridty. I suppose I should have prefaced that I don't prioritize diversity so much that balance (because really, gameplay has much to do with balance) is tossed out the window. Not that I ever came across someone that seriously though tanks at T1 was a great idea in any respect.

Or, in other words: FRP are an advantage for blobbers as well as people that properly smoke and flank. And I really doubt that blobbing will become less pronounced with FRP removed; it might actually have the opposite effect (see my previous post). The last blob I encountered was a Penal PTRS blob, so...

The second problem is that you'd just find OKW camping because they still got T2 truck's reinforcement and healing. At least Ostheer can fall back on halftracks and a backup bunker strategically placed elsewhere, so any campiness they rely on is more flexible.
FRP makes sense for a faction that has none of those. You would have to put them into OKW for it to work, but then of course that's total lack of diversity for sake of, presumably, good if not overdone and bland gameplay. I didn't buy OKW so I could play it like Ostheer, rather the entire point of buying that faction, for ANYONE, is to play Axis differently.

On the subject of maps, gameplay is probably a bigger factor than FRPs. Sittard is great for FRP blobbers, but its a whole different matter for Hill 400 where being shelled by the other side is far more frequent and dangerous. Sittard is a map where you can blob a bit and build up while defending chokepoints: Hill 400 has no chokepoints so blobbing is a very hit or miss tactic that can go wrong because an HMG can be found in any direction you choose to attack. Being frequently pushed back to FRP is hardly a get out of jail free tactic for that map because they can so easily follow up with artillery on said FRP position; if you hard retreat back to base then they just keep shelling the FRP so you don't have one.

From that perspective I'd say the maps themselves play a far greater role for gameplay than something like FRP. Without FRP we'd just choose Fortification Doctrine as OKW for Sittard since that's the only one that gives bunkers. As that's another blow for both diversity AND gameplay, I don't see how that's striking a better balance between the two.

The biggest thing I see with FRP in terms of commanders is that neither affects the other very well, and I think they should. IMO units like Panzerfusiliers should't exist and Volks should just get a scout ability that locks out other roles like no panzerfaust; instead we get a unit call-in that's even larger squad size, can sprint, can scout, AND do AT snare. Commander design certainly doesn't help FRP balance.

The frp-blob connection I think hinges entirely on the following: a mass retreat on a blob is a desirable goal. An frp reduces the impact of this outcome by reducing the time the blob is off the field.

That is the situation people are freaking out about and are trying to address. As far as I can tell that is all.

When I blob I actually try not to retreat in droves. I can't speak for any other blobber of course, but my reasoning is that if I already have a few squads to sustain the fight there's no point in retreating all of them when I can still push. Which is kind of why I do't see eye to eye with blobs = brainless cheese. If anything it's more because you need to coordinate other units with teammates awhile only retreating squads in danger of being wiped out.
The few times I do I find it frustrating that not everyone assembles at once so you might find yourself streaming them out as squads return to players' control. Map geography exacerbates this, and sometimes squads can NEVER return to control because a guy got stuck.

what I'm trying to say is balance comes first and saying "this feature makes the game diverse" does not mean that the feature is automatically good. If the feature spoils balance,it should be reconsidered. That is all. Diversity is great and interesting but not when it comes at the cost of balance.

But is this thread not about balance and instead gameplay?

And I don't agree with FRPs spoiling balance, I've lost plenty of times cheese blobbing. Maybe because I'm not a 1v1 tourney, but maybe that's actually why removing FRP isn't a great idea: this game's not for a small elite of the already small playerbase. Maybe that's WHY it's a small playerbase.

So whatever we have to say about game design, it's really just whether Relic sees it as making more money. Balance is hardly THEIR priority, especially given how in-game store and skills are much more polished faster than the game it uses.

yea. it can apply to all statements that are general.

the poll clearly shows it is not a minority.

the poll clearly shows it is not a minority.

No, the poll clearly shows that less than a hundred people to date have interacted with it.

When I blob I actually try not to retreat in droves. I can't speak for any other blobber of course, but my reasoning is that if I already have a few squads to sustain the fight there's no point in retreating all of them when I can still push. Which is kind of why I do't see eye to eye with blobs = brainless cheese. If anything it's more because you need to coordinate other units with teammates awhile only retreating squads in danger of being wiped out.
The few times I do I find it frustrating that not everyone assembles at once so you might find yourself streaming them out as squads return to players' control. Map geography exacerbates this, and sometimes squads can NEVER return to control because a guy got stuck.

Precisely, but most discussions of blobbing tend to assume that the player is mass retreating. I am personally of the opinion that blobbing is more a result of people reaching critical mass on micro. I know when I'm trying to finesse some tank combat and I just need to get my damn forces to the front the ugly mass movements come out. Faster and easier access to healing and reinforcing just, well, heals and reinforces faster and easier.

Also, please note you have misquoted me with the last paragraph there. Bulgakov wrote that, not myself.

Sorry copied wrong text Dx

The times I mass retreat I know I am performing an unnecessary action that could have dire consequences, and sometimes it does. Mass retreating means no units to present resistance at all, and the enemy knows where you're going and what you're doing. You set yourself up for an artillery wipe. Retreating one unit at a time obviously mitigates this, and also obviously means you have to individually command your blob, not always an easy task.
This also means that the power of a blob was never really dealt with by Relic. You can't blob mighty panzerschrecks anymore for sure, but USF can still do that since weapon racks can be for anyone. If anything panzerfaust for Volks should be through an upgrade, not a vet0 ability.

If there's a problem with FRP and gameplay is that it's the gameplay itself outside of FRP, not FRP itself. Removing it will be far less effective than just mitigating the underlying factors.

Your inability to understand a perfectly cogent sentence does not make it gibberish. Replying "this is gibberish" instead of "please explain what you mean" is very childish and leads me to believe you are not worth talking to at all.

In fact all your posts really just say "I LOVE THIS FEATURE AND WILL NOT RECONSIDER MY POSITION!" So, happy blobbing, happy Britting, you're not worth talking to at all.

And yet you spoke directly to me.

I also see you did a good job of intelligently considering my points.

I would also like to know (not related to you), where the Relic mods are getting their source data from. Because it is easy to come here and see many people post over certain topics, but I doubt we cover a vast majority of the player base and what they want.

No, the poll clearly shows that less than a hundred people to date have interacted with it.

This is the best snap shot of the playerbase. apart from polls in official forum i guess. we can't force all people to get involved in community decision making.

Diversity is great and interesting but not when it comes at the cost of balance.

...and I guess everybody agrees with that (other than those that find diversity irrelevant). You sounded earlier like you meant that diversity has no quality whatsoever.

Either way, the poll is not about balance. And actually I think it is also not about diversity either (because it doesn't ask if they diverse way in which FRPs are implemented is beneficial to gameplay; ok, you could argue that having FRPs allows for more diversity in how they are implemented). My impression is that the question is more about if the mechanic of FRPs helps gameplay, regardless of which faction it has or how it is implemented in detail.

In the spirit of your signature, I'll start a list of pro's an cons.

Reasons why FRPs could be detrimental to gameplay:

• Promote blobbing
  
• Reduce the value of soft retreats
  
• Reduce the penalty for being suppressed
  

Reasons why FRPs could be beneficial to gameplay:

• Add a strategic decision (tactical in case of USF) on when and where to set up the FRP.
  
• Add a counterplay mechanic to blobs (force retreat, barrage FRP)
  
• More usefulness for static artillery
  
• Reduces downtime in a game
  

Feel free to add points to both lists.

Now, the thing is, we probably weigh the points above in a different way and thus come overall to a different opinion. For example, I personally (as stated before) am not convinced that "1: Promote blobbing" really is a thing and feel that the points in the second list outweigh the remaining points in the upper list. Other people value the points in the upper list more and thus come to the overall conclusion that FRPs are detrimental, and that's fine.

Reasons why FRPs could be beneficial to gameplay:

• Add a strategic decision (tactical in case of USF) on when and where to set up the FRP.
  
• Add a counterplay mechanic to blobs (force retreat, barrage FRP)
  
• More usefulness for static artillery
  
• Reduces downtime in a game
  

Problem comes from over estimating this so called "pros".

1- Strategic decision: is is "strategic" to ALWAYS build your tiers as SU/OH on the border of your base so you can reinforce while moving out or doing so while fighting? I want to put really huge emphasis on the ALWAYS part. When a decision ends up been a no brainer, there's no longer a tactical/strategic decision IMO.

Ex1: good strategic choice would be putting your Med truck on Semoisky near the city and play aggro so you can push the advantage of having meds and reinforce on the front, while you consider that to be outweighting the risks of indirect fire or having to retreat from that position. Not sure how many players played like that but before UKF/CalliOP it was a valid option on 2v2 and i remember some players like Koreanarmy doing so on 1v1.

There was also the factor that there was less rocket artillery or it was riskier, putting the pressure only on mortar fire. SU: Howitzer play was not as strong/meta and it arriving later. USF: lacking indirect unless going Infantry with Priests.

Ex2: no brainer current situation. Right now FRP doesn't see play on 1v1 (as it always had been). 2v2 happens depending on opponent and map. Still less frequent than before. But in the cases you can use it, you put it right behind a shotblocker or pocket places on the map, on which only a REAL forward Howitzer can reach it.
Then you have 3v3+ that due to map nature and playstyle, makes them no brainer on pocket defensive position.

2-If they have the possibility of forcing a mass retreat and been able to barrage a FRP, then he just need to deactivate the forced retreat on that position. Unit will just go back to HQ.

3-Basically point 2.

4-Reduces downtime in a game. This i wouldn't consider it a GOOD option for the fact that it promotes "bad gameplay behaviour" (smashing heads back to back).


WITH THAT BEEN SAID, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD ELEMENT TO GAMEPLAY IF we are not hypocritical in saying that it adds strategical depth and embrace the fact that you like YOLO modes with lots of bashing heads to head and spamming of units n vehicles. Hey, i also like this type of gameplay from time to time.