Profile of Inverse

All players really? Did you do a poll to know that , are you including yourself since you don't play the game? How many threads have we see about this terrible system all players are frustrated off here in coh2.org?
Actual spawning system is a good compromise to not have to think how to balance spawning units from building. It has a defaut which you mention but devs can easily provide a workaround or a fix to that.

In my opinion it's a pretty objective design improvement in that it provides almost all benefits with almost no drawbacks. The only arguments against it here have cited its potential balance impact or how it's less "realistic", neither of which have any impact on design quality. And balance impact is A) impossible to predict, B) short-term, and C) easily tweaked.

If you ignore balance impact, and you should ignore balance impact when discussing fundamental design changes such as this one, the most compelling reason against the change here has been how to handle OKW's trucks. This is, in my opinion, a minor downside when compared to the massive upsides I've highlighted in this and my other posts.

This is a change made solely to benefit 1v1, and so far the arguments in favour (faster units on field, more "skillful" building placement) are irrelevant in team games and do more to hurt these modes as others have stated.

If this change is implemented there needs to be a way to select where each team mate starts(which on random teams will be horrible to try and get randoms to agree with you or pay attention) as certain maps it is imperative to get an mg setup in specific locations or several players to one side of the map. Ostheer and Soviets are already screwed on large maps by no FRP, this will just make certain maps even more frustrating.

In the end, minor benefits for extra frustration. Don't fix what isn't broken.

This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the current system is a terrible design that is frustrating for all players because units are in some cases not selectable immediately based on map and starting position and some unit abilities are not available for arbitrary periods of time until units manage to walk onto the map proper. Balance and strategic impact take a back seat to poor design here. Arguing against a fundamental design improvement because it might cause a temporary imbalance is extremely short-sighted. Balance is easily tweaked. This change is a net quality-of-life improvement for every single player from a design perspective, which means the game will improve in the long term even if you have to endure a relatively short period of imbalance. And keep in mind that until the change is actually implemented it's impossible to say what balance impact, if any, it will actually have.

Furthermore the current system ensures units that have slower build-times aren't compensated by moving the building up. Doing this negates changes to like the MG42 and the Maxim which have slower build-times to prevent them from taking territory/buildings quickly. If they spawned in the base or at the edge, what was the point of the build-time change?

Again, balance is irrelevant in this case because as a design change this is a net positive. Balance can be tweaked. But even so, your logic doesn't make any sense at all. This doesn't just push up the time-to-field of certain units, it pushes up the time-to-field of all units. In the vast majority of cases the relative times-to-field of two different units are going to be reduced by the exact same amount. It doesn't matter that Maxims and MG42s are going to hit the field 20 seconds faster when Grens and Conscripts and every other infantry unit in the game are going to hit the field 20 seconds faster as well. It's a complete wash.

As far as I know the change is only for infantry. It matters less for vehicles because they move fast enough for the further spawn point to be less important.

Keep in mind as well that building positioning really only has strategic relevance very early in the game. Early in the game it rarely makes sense to hold back units, while later in the game you're going to want to wait for power timings and unit consolidation more often. Therefore the positioning of any post-T1 structure is far less important.

And like I mentioned in my first post, I really don't think the strategic value of building placement is the most important side effect of this change. The fact that you can't fully control units until they're on the field, can't even select them immediately on some maps/starting positions, and can't properly choose your spawn point are all far larger design problems that this change solves.

This change has no effect on HQ-produced units at all. Their advantage has always been their ability to be produced without having to spend time building a structure, and their ability to be produced in tandem with units in other structures. The fact that they might lose a few seconds of travel time because they can't spawn as close to the field as other units will have a negligible impact on balance.

Stop thinking in terms of balance impact. This community's obsession with balance is infuriating. Balance impact is impossible to predict. This is a design change, not a balance change, and it's a clear and obvious improvement over the current design. Worry about balance when there's actual reason to worry.

To me this sounds like a "minor" inconvenience that Relic could solve by allowing you to queue repair/construction commands while your units are on the way. However, the disadvantages that the new system will bring are major:
- USF and UKF have no option to place their buildings. In essence, Relic deadlocked themselves into this when they designed those two factions that way.

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.

- In teamgame oriented maps, walking to the desired edge could take up to 1 minute. So, what do you do?
A. Spend the first minute of the battle waiting for your pioneers walk to build your T1 at the other end of the map.
B. Build your T1 locally, and then assume an additional 1 minute delay for every new squad that you want to spawn/
- Is reducing spawning delay by 20 seconds worth adding a 60 second delay to the majority of the gamemodes? Think about it; if somebody feels so pissed about a 20 second delay (in 1v1) to create a thread, how many more people will be pissed about an 60 second delay (in 4v4)?

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

- Even if you try to optimize your spawn point, the dynamics of a battle change (they always do in teamgames; especially with forward retreat points). However, you're screwed, because now you are married to the spot you built your T1.

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.

To make sure we are on the same page about this issue:
- Most people play automatch games in CoH2. The automatch system assigns people to random locations.
- All factions in CoH2 are viable to play. However, having 2 of the same faction on the same side is usually limiting (some factions lack options. E.g., OKW is weak on suppression, Brits are weak on indirect fire). Thus, you want to mix the factions, even if the random placement screwed you over.
- Some 3v3 maps are actually 4v4 maps where only 3 out of 4 spawnpoints are used. The decision which 3 spawn points will be used is also random.

This issue probably doesn't appear in CoH1 currently, because:
- Most teamgames are usually arranged through custom games. People can decide their starting locations there.
- PE and Brits are not self-sufficient factions. Even in 2v2 most people will shy away from them. Thus, the whole 'mixing the factions' argument becomes less of an issue.
- There are exactly 3 3v3 maps and 2 (or 3) 4v4 maps in total in CoH1, and all spawn points are used. Thus, there is no way that an "optimal" spawn point will not be used. However, even if you were planning on using the Automatch queue, nobody queues up there anymore.

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.

However, the whole babysit-your-rally point is a godsent, since it allows you to overcome all of these issues, and more:
- If the random placement screws your team over, the Rally point system allows you to overcome it.
- If the dynamics of the battle change, you can choose where to spawn your support weapons/tanks/etc to support your teammates. This makes battle feel less lane-based and rewards teamwork

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.