Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Are you looking for match, a stategy, a tactic or looking for a replay? Stop right here, and look no further.
kwok
Posts: 1063
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby kwok » 07 Nov 2017, 00:14

The amount of times I get complained at for my game settings is.... uncountable, obnoxious, and dare I say moronic. Aside from the obvious large map settings I've probably talked about [rant] NON STOP (which something new to add that I find HILARIOUS in the recent games... when people ask for a 3v3 map instead of playing a 3v3 on something like goodwood because it is "too big and unbalanced", but then they LOVE the map blija even though it's the same if not bigger fucking sized map as goodwood.. let alone EVERY OTHER 4v4 MAP AVAILABLE)
.
.
.
.
[/rant]

Sorry rant over. Well... okay. not really.

The reason why I like high resources better than standard is because I GREATLY prefer the larger unit and opening availability in high resources compared to the "rock-paper-scissors"-esque openings in standard. This isn't to say that there are minor balance issues in high resources, but that high resources is more fun and gives players more of a chance to last to the later game.

The problem of standard resources
What bothers me the most about standard resources is the extremely limited openings available due to not having enough manpower or fuel, which turns the tide of the game WAY too fast within the mere first few minutes. I'll explain why based on a few premises:

- A typical standard resource game only allows for 1 to 2 units max before there is a long stretch of time before the next unit is available.
- When choosing the first couple of units you are also bound to a small selection of units, ranging from the most diverse USA faction to the least diverse CW faction.
- The units available within the first few minutes of the game are usually some type of basic inf, some type of AT, some type of light vehicle, and some type of support infantry. Each type of unit will naturally counter another type of unit with varying degrees of efficiency. For example, basic infantry will typically counter AT by mobility and small arms fire while AT will counter light vehicles by power and durability. Patch changes over time will shake this dynamic, but most the time the underlying rock-paper-scissors circle direction will remain mostly untouched (comments of latest patch probably discussed elsewhere).
- Players in the opening will typically fight for specific high value positions on the map to secure a strong income to carry them to later games past their opponent. Something like going for the center that protects a large area of multiple resource points or high fuel point. Not doing so will put them in a great disadvantage and greatly lower their chances of victory. (will make a post on BK openings in bknc)

Under these circumstances there are only very few outcomes:
1. Players will clash for the high value point for the first 5 minutes where one side will dominate over the other for that point (either through skill OR luck), thus giving the winning side a huge advantage.
OR the hedged version
2. At least one side of players will play a null strategy where they don't fight to WIN the first 5 minute engagement but make sure no one gets a clear advantage.

The first scenario is probably the most frustrating where good players against good players OR bad players against bad players will mark "gg" within the first 5 minutes. This is because either a good player who wins advantage knows how to not make mistakes and keep the advantage to snowball towards victory OR bad players will not know how to properly retake the early game. The only way out of those situations is pure RNG luck or skill difference, neither making for a "good game".

The second scenario is a little bit MORE interesting because it is intentionally prolonging the game to a state where the early game fades out into an early-mid game where more units start deploying. In which case I beg to ask... why not skip to this phase entirely?

The high resource settings pushes through the early game much faster and opens up a much LARGER pool of available openings for ALL factions (I'll go through the most notorious later, but honestly I've heard bitching from all sides). The players who know how to play high resources typically knows how to go to scenario two already. The players who don't know how to play high resources try too hard to play as if it were scenario one and end up throwing because they do not focus on having a well-balanced, integrated, combined forces with strategy. Instead they rely too much on winning rock paper scissors and micro to over dominate their opponent. This is really common against the experienced and knowledgeable players, but not the most adaptive players. Players who are "good" cuz they spent so many of the same games over and over again that they know the rock-paper-scissor mechanics, but as soon as a new patch comes out with the slightest touch to early game balance they come crying to the forums for balance.

I like high resources a lot more because it greatly mitigates the role of luck in the early game, greatly mitigates the impact of the first 5 minutes for the entire game, and opens up a much more interesting variety across games that I play. I've seen so many kinds of openings, many of them that work and many that don't. I know some people just prefer playing rock paper scissors with high micro mechanics, fine by me. But, that's not why I play BK and CoH. If I wanted games like THAT I'd play Starcraft.

That's my pseudo rant/essay, and I promised I'll talk about the faction openings. In an effort to convince players to consider high resources even MORE, I'll write up an "BK openings and early game guide" for high resources where I'll go into detail for each faction the kinds of starting moves I like to make and how to counter players who like to play rock paper scissors.







SELF-ADVERTISING-SHAMELESS-PLUG!!!
I solve this problem in my mod through a concept called "recon groups" or "recon phase". In my mod, instead of choosing units individually like in BK or any other coh game, you are given the option to choose an entire group of units to be fielded right away. These groups of units usually are balanced with some type of AT, Anti-Inf, and Support Weaponry. There is some variety in the type of recon groups you can call in to maintain that personal flair, but their core capabilities across each should be integrated enough that you can face any situation somehow and won't be completely shut down based on the enemy's opening.

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 76
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Henny » 08 Nov 2017, 01:39

I whole heartedly agree with everything you have said Kwok. high resc or DEATH

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3196
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Tiger1996 » 08 Nov 2017, 01:40

in my humble opinion, I think high resources and low resources are highly dependent on the map... If the map is rich and provides high resource points, then I am afraid playing high resources would only make it more ridiculous on such maps.. other maps on the other hand are not rich on resources, that's where high resources might be more fun.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Walderschmidt » 08 Nov 2017, 07:59

you tell'em!

Kwok!

Wald

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 487
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby sgtToni95 » 08 Nov 2017, 08:21

I think the point is that the initial skirmishes can be fought using a wider selection of units.. Map resources will affect later phases of the game in a similar way, wether they started with high or standard res.

kwok
Posts: 1063
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby kwok » 08 Nov 2017, 08:26

In your humble opinion it may seem like that without much calculation or thorough thinking, but when put into perspective high resources doesn't really grant THAT much resources. Take for example revised cherbourg, regarded as a resource rich map already (let alone the original road to cherbourg in which it would make even less impact).
Assuming that the map was split "typical even" it is likely that each side will have the following income:
3x manpower points (+24 manpower)
3x low munition points (+15 mu)
2x medium munition points (+20 mu)
2x low fuel points (+8 fuel)
1x high fuel point (+9 fuel)
NET INCOME: ~300/35/17
NOTE: This is WITHOUT putting resource bumping upgrades like observational posts or CW upgrades. Also, leaving out the middle +9 fuel that I would say is often "contested" but maybe 70% going to the top side within the first few minutes of the game.

Starting high resources is 1450/95/50. The time it takes for all the net income to make the low resources hit the high resource level is at most 3 minutes. A game can last on average maybe 35 minutes (often longer), so all high resource does even on resource rich maps is fast foward a game a rounded DOWN 3 minutes**, about 8% of the game when players are either playing rock paper scissors, waiting for those 3 minutes to get resources for the unit assortment to actually make moves, or waiting for one player to make a rookie mistake. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think high resources makes much impact or add to the "ridiculousness" on resource rich maps at all. In fact, I think it's the map SIZE that has MORE add to "ridiculousness" rather than how resource rich a map is (NOTE: I said "MORE" which means resource income on a map DEFINITELY has an impact on how a map is played. But the most complained issues of a map are more impacted by size than resource. Using revised cherbourg as an example, people STILL complain about it's arty camp game mechanics despite its resource adjustments.)

Ironically, I think high resources makes even MORE impact on low income maps because it accelerates the game on scale much more. Where as it takes 3 minutes on road to cherbourg to make up for the resource difference, maybe it would take 4 or 5 minutes instead.

Additional notes:
**For reference on what 3 minutes is in impactful game time: motorcylces take 210 manpower and 30 seconds to make. In other words, say you wanted to "abuse" the high resources by spamming things you normally couldn't in a high resource game vs a low resource game. With high resources you can churn out almost 7 motorcycles and it would take about 3.5 minutes. But, if you were to just take the "high resource map" income manpower starting from low resources, the time it would take for you to get 7 motorcycles is..... 3.5 minutes? Because build time literally caps stuff like that from happening. The time it takes for a unit to be built and resources cost is regenerated in the time that unit is built. The only difference between high and low resource settings is pretty much when those units trickle in: now or in 3 minutes.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 154
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Kr0noZ » 08 Nov 2017, 09:03

I think the biggest impact High Res has on gameplay comes from the starting fuel, which is normally 0 and stays there until you actually cap a fuel point, whereas the 50 fuel on high res are enough to quickly get the tech going (2nd building). This cuts down the time people spend in Stage 1 of the tech tree, leading to the fact that most T1 units are quickly obsolete or at least outperformed by rapidly arriving T2+ units.

IMO, that takes some of the strategy out of early game - why bother building an additional rifle/volks to secure a part of the map or reinforce a contested area if you can quickly get a Gren/Ranger or deploy a vehicle?

However, the fact that the game tends to progress to higher tech levels rather quickly seems to be a thing that only bothers me (and perhaps a small minority of players), so it's probably just me being weird in that department.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Walderschmidt » 08 Nov 2017, 10:39

Kr0noZ wrote:I think the biggest impact High Res has on gameplay comes from the starting fuel, which is normally 0 and stays there until you actually cap a fuel point, whereas the 50 fuel on high res are enough to quickly get the tech going (2nd building). This cuts down the time people spend in Stage 1 of the tech tree, leading to the fact that most T1 units are quickly obsolete or at least outperformed by rapidly arriving T2+ units.

IMO, that takes some of the strategy out of early game - why bother building an additional rifle/volks to secure a part of the map or reinforce a contested area if you can quickly get a Gren/Ranger or deploy a vehicle?

However, the fact that the game tends to progress to higher tech levels rather quickly seems to be a thing that only bothers me (and perhaps a small minority of players), so it's probably just me being weird in that department.


I only wish the game would stay in T1 longer because I'm yet good with my timing when it comes to teching up and ending a game.

Wald

kwok
Posts: 1063
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby kwok » 08 Nov 2017, 21:15

I think I understand what you're saying Kronoz and you're not alone in preferring an extended early game. But, I think what ends up happening in PvP games is players will naturally try to escape the early game as fast as possible. The meta based on the current game design favors the player that gets to T2 first, so often people will bypass that "additional rifle/volks" if they can get away with locking down that high fuel point and then saving MP for teching up that second building ASAP.

What you say was actually one of the reasons why I proposed to move AT Boys before the LT AND make the recce cost more fuel a couple patches ago. There are probably better ways to put more emphasis on the early game by tweaking the benefits, costs, and opportunity costs of teching instead of forcing players to play rock-paper-scissors in this artificial early game. Because regardless of high/low resource, build orders are pretty much still the same unless someone has made a meta-related mistake or RNG super favors someone.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 248
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby Redgaarden » 16 Nov 2017, 10:55

That is why I propose playing vp. It takes the neverending lategame away.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

kwok
Posts: 1063
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Why I prefer my settings: High vs Standard Resources

Postby kwok » 16 Nov 2017, 18:39

Walder and i play vp all the time for that reason and we personally prefer a more objective oriented game instead of who can throw resources harder. It feels more military when you manage how to accomplish a job with resources than to solely manage a resource pool.


Return to “Matchmaking & Strategies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests