I hate control points in strategy games
- Thread starter CrysisMcGee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Firstly, I love World in Conflict so I just MIGHT be a little biased there. I've not played any Warhammer so I don't comment its game mechanics.
In WiC CPs work pretty well. Its multiplayer wouldn't have any meaning without them. Eventhough my favourite mode is assault I must say that holding certain CP has almost always some meaning. Like a town square or a power station where you can control ways to several different CPs. Few weeks ago I realized that in Project Reality the side controlling the battlefield usualy wins. While this isn't a ground breaking observation it shows the meaning of CPs. The side controlling CPs has more ground and is therefore able to use more flexible tactics.
Control poins get on my nervers mainly in singleplayer. Why should I capture that empty house in that canyon? I can leave a rifleteam to watch it's surroundings and see if anything breathes there, but I'm not going to take my antire unit there. Well the games scripting forces me. Having captured the depo I find myself surrounded. Now there's a surprise.
WiC's SP was mainly going from spot A to spot B with orders "Capture enemys positions, dig in and hold. Oh yeah, mind the church." Still I regard it as a best RTS (or RTT if you prefer) SP which leaves even RA2 behind. It's the athmosphere and charactes.
Having written a couple of paragraphs I realize that I'm not very comfortable with CPs either. Maybe it's because my first RTS was Age of Empires 2. From there I went through C&C's 1st decade and some Total Wars and nowadays I support titles like Theatre of War and Men of War. All these games give objectives, but how you achieve them is up to you. Same goes for the assassination simulators like Hitman and Death to Spies series. Agenda of these games is creativity and freedom.
All in all, I don't need some game developer to tell me which position is crucial for victory, I can make that decision myself. This highlights in Total War especially well. But since most of the multiplayer matches aren't clanmatches CPs are needed to give a reason to fight. Without them armies would wander aimlessly on the battlefield or lay in wait to ambush otherside who is doing same thing. There wouldn't be attackers or defenders.
My final statement: "WiC uses control points extremely well. Without them there wouldn't a need to move a muscle. That game is all about controlling larger area than your opponent."
I'm looking foward to debate that this topic hopefully ignites.
In WiC CPs work pretty well. Its multiplayer wouldn't have any meaning without them. Eventhough my favourite mode is assault I must say that holding certain CP has almost always some meaning. Like a town square or a power station where you can control ways to several different CPs. Few weeks ago I realized that in Project Reality the side controlling the battlefield usualy wins. While this isn't a ground breaking observation it shows the meaning of CPs. The side controlling CPs has more ground and is therefore able to use more flexible tactics.
Control poins get on my nervers mainly in singleplayer. Why should I capture that empty house in that canyon? I can leave a rifleteam to watch it's surroundings and see if anything breathes there, but I'm not going to take my antire unit there. Well the games scripting forces me. Having captured the depo I find myself surrounded. Now there's a surprise.
WiC's SP was mainly going from spot A to spot B with orders "Capture enemys positions, dig in and hold. Oh yeah, mind the church." Still I regard it as a best RTS (or RTT if you prefer) SP which leaves even RA2 behind. It's the athmosphere and charactes.
Having written a couple of paragraphs I realize that I'm not very comfortable with CPs either. Maybe it's because my first RTS was Age of Empires 2. From there I went through C&C's 1st decade and some Total Wars and nowadays I support titles like Theatre of War and Men of War. All these games give objectives, but how you achieve them is up to you. Same goes for the assassination simulators like Hitman and Death to Spies series. Agenda of these games is creativity and freedom.
All in all, I don't need some game developer to tell me which position is crucial for victory, I can make that decision myself. This highlights in Total War especially well. But since most of the multiplayer matches aren't clanmatches CPs are needed to give a reason to fight. Without them armies would wander aimlessly on the battlefield or lay in wait to ambush otherside who is doing same thing. There wouldn't be attackers or defenders.
My final statement: "WiC uses control points extremely well. Without them there wouldn't a need to move a muscle. That game is all about controlling larger area than your opponent."
I'm looking foward to debate that this topic hopefully ignites.
I loved how DOW2 worked, it let you focus on fire and maneuver tactics with your troops and cut out everything else on the map that didn't help you kill the enemyWicky_42 said:
I like them because they encourage more direct strategy than 'wait in base until army size >= [desired army size] then attack'.
[sub]Yes, I know there's more to it than that, but I have a point to make here[/sub]
The fact that there is always an odd number of control points means that someone is constantly striving to take another one, and you can't reach a stalemate, where each team has an even number of points.
It also means that there is always a way to recover from a crippling attack, whereas with resource gathering, if you lose your mine and town centre and can't afford to build any more, there is absolutely no way of recovering.
[sub]Yes, I know there's more to it than that, but I have a point to make here[/sub]
The fact that there is always an odd number of control points means that someone is constantly striving to take another one, and you can't reach a stalemate, where each team has an even number of points.
It also means that there is always a way to recover from a crippling attack, whereas with resource gathering, if you lose your mine and town centre and can't afford to build any more, there is absolutely no way of recovering.
I play Total War games
We don't bother with any kind of resource/control point shenanigans
We have to deal with PR propaganda and AI nightmares
NTW looks good though. They can't let us down again...right?
...RIGHT!?
We don't bother with any kind of resource/control point shenanigans
We have to deal with PR propaganda and AI nightmares
NTW looks good though. They can't let us down again...right?
...RIGHT!?
True, that. I just wished I didn't suck ta the multiplayer so much - or that my internet would connect to multiplayer for the duration of a full game... or that I could actually pick what game I wanted to join, thus avoiding 250 ping games...Cody211282 said:
I haven't tried to many online games yet, still working my way though single playerWicky_42 said:
Yep, CnC4 will not have base building but rather base 'crawler' units which can temporarily deploy and produce units. There will be no harvesting tiberium, but rather it will simply be found on the map and used to purchase unit upgrades and level them up. As for the campaign, it will be played (with a constant internet connection) with other players online.Wicky_42 said:
It sounds like a TON of bad ideas all around!
I hated the World in Conflict style of control points. To me, I just couldn't play multiplayer. I think they were really well done in CoH.
I like 'em too. It forces me to go out and take the offensive. I'm a very defensive player.Cody211282 said:
That was my biggest problem with warcraft/starcraft type games, I never wanted to leave the base without the max amount of units I could haveMortons4ck said:
Control points are annoying. They're almost never in places that have any other value than the control point itself. If a location is valuable, it will get fought over for the value of it, not the control point. If there's a chokepoint, controlling that should be an advantage for tactical players, not simply a goal handed to everyone.
Control points are great, they punish turtling and reward map control and multitasking. You can't just do the kinda boring thing of sitting in your base building an army until you do one big attack after like 15 minutes of nothing happening, you have to get out there and maintain map control, which means the game has constant attacks as you fight over territory.
I like CP's. Without them, and without zone control, the fighting tends to take place where-ever, and both teams are just trying to rush eachothers bases. With control points, opposing teams create a sort "line" of defense, which they have to hold/push. It also means that you'll have a lot more small scale skirmishes, because there really isn't a lot of point dividing your army all over the map, if you don't need to conquer land.
In short, with control points, the battle is focused on the middle of the map (usually), instead of two opposite corners.
In short, with control points, the battle is focused on the middle of the map (usually), instead of two opposite corners.
I prefer resource gathering to control points in general, even if it is less realistic. I suppose that's just the result of growing up with the Command & Conquer series. I don't hate control points by any means though. I really liked Ground Control II and troop acquisition was entirely based around control points in that.
While it sounds like bad ideas, I am intrigued. Aside from being a totally online game, there's really nothing that turns me off to it. Although I would prefer a traditional strategy game, I will play this one as well. Though I will read reviews before I pick it up.tsb247 said: