Since this matter is brought up by Quinn in public, i might re-post my detailed thoughts about this mechanic here as well. I hope i am not going too far here, please let me know, if i did, and i'll remove this post. Prepare, wall of text!!
-----originally posted Dec. 14th 2012------
I would like to add my comments here. I'll do this by directly commenting two quotes by Quinn Duffy.
Quinn Duffy
"One thing was reducing a bit of the mindshare on the resource side of the game and putting more focus on tactical gameplay. That was one reason we reduced the number of points and changed the resource system. We wanted to put that focus on tactics. I think that’s more fun. Resource management is a means to an end. I want to be flanking guys and throwing grenades.
I definitely like the idea to draw the focus as much as possible to tactical gameplay, cause that’s where COH shines! Simplifying the resource system is a two sided sword in this regard though!
Pro:
- What is definitely a great idea is to change the capping system to be based on field presence without dedicating individual units to cap a point, drawing them away from combat! Good move!
- Incooperating VPs as sectors, not just as separated points makes more sense. Separating the control of the VP and holding the area surrounding the VP is not necessary and a welcome change!
Contra:
- It’s a bad thing however to not force the player into a decision where to put an outpost on sector points, because the lowest risk is choosing the sector just outside your base sector. Putting outposts on sectors further away is higher risk, at the same reward.
- The preveous point has even further consequences. Cut-Off sectors usually are closer to the opponents base, which makes it necessary that they are capable rather quickly. Now that those points are usually the points with OPs on them, they are no longer harassable, even if they were meant to be cut-off sectors.
Cut-Off mechanics however are essential for COH gameplay, especially for tactical gameplay, which you want to put the focus on! If there is no need to keep a closer eye to cut-off sectors, you will concentrate your troops into a smaller portion of the map, creating frontlines which reduce the possibility for tactical moves!! I cannot stress enough how important this mechanic is for competitive COH!
You could forbid outposts on specific sectors (like the ones directly connected to your base), but this seems like an artificial approach that I don’t really like.
- Many strategies rely on either focusing on specific abilities that need extra munitions, or on quick techs, which need extra fuel. As a consequence, for each tactic you needed individual approaches to conquer the map and hold specific pieces of ground. This resulted in a variety of tactical decisions!
Moreover, the same applied backwards. You could also focus on denying your opponent specific portions of a map to force him into specific stratigies or keep him away from others. This added a large tactical layer to the COH1 resource system.
Allowing players choose which kind of resource to generate from an outpost removes this tactical element partially, cause no matter which territories you deny to your opponent he can still generate the resources he needs.
- However, it is kinda necessary to give players the choice which resources to generate, because of the reduction of sector numbers. If you would create separate types of resource points for fuel and munitions, you would have to use up all the available sectors to distribute them. Otherwise you would have to give each of them a too high resource generation rate.
As a consequence there are no sectors left that could be used as quickly capable strategic sectors, which are desperately needed for cut-off mechanics.
What I was trying to say here is, all the 4 contra points are not easily separated from each other and are more or less a direct result of decreasing the number of sectors. So, instead of moving the focus towards tactical play by making things “more simple” it actually took away a lot of it.
In this regard I have to support those who said that the COH1 resource system was working really fine, why change it.
Going back back to around 20 sectors per map allows separating different resource types into different sectors, allowing different approaches to a map with different tactics. At the same time you have space for about 4 strategic sectors which you can use for Cut-off sectors that are not worth to put Outposts on.
Adding the capture system based on field presence is already focussing things more on battle, which might be enough to tweak the already good COH1 system to be perfect!
Quinn Duffy
"We have two map modes that we’re looking at. There’s the frontline mode, and there’s what we call a battlefield. The frontline maps are more symmetrical. We have three victory points that you fight over on every map. You want to own a majority of those and start ticking down your opponent’s points.
The battlefield maps are more asymmetrical. It puts pressure on the players to determine whether they want to capture resources or capture victory points. It’s more cutoff gameplay. The territories, much like supply lines, can be cut off, and that prevents players from earning those resources."
I am actually also a bit confused about this statement.
In competitive games we usually want cut-off gameplay to distribute the battle on larger portions of the map and force players into decisions (Battlefield). At the same time competitive games need balanced resource placement and even VP distribution to not give one side an unfair advantage (Frontline).
If these two map types were to make two different parts of the community happy (competitive players and casual players) then I am not sure if it is working out. Or were both map modes meant for both parts of the community the same?
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
