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.