3v3 and 4v4 state of the game
Posts: 18
Posts: 223
Maybe. Most idiots and droppers play 4v4. So those idiots would just move to 3v3. Now that idiot would reduce your overall team strength from 75% to 66%. Statistically, the more people, the stronger your overall team strength should be. Bad players and team balance should be more even with more players?
Besides all that, I would rather play 8v8 than 4v4 The more carnage and chaos the better! The best part of COH (and hopefully AOE4) is controlling large armies and actually feeling like you are managing and seeing what each unit is doing. So giant late game pushes are the payoff for some of us. Cute little flanks and cheese abilities do nothing for me. I want to see walls of death crashing into each other to then be wiped off the face of the earth with some nuke like bombs!
1v1-3v3 = sparkler.
4v4 = M80.
Yes, I have a very low IQ
Yeah, when the caster in 2on2 games swallows with excitement and his voice goes over, when 2 tanks attack, I can only smile tiredly.
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Maybe. Most idiots and droppers play 4v4. So those idiots would just move to 3v3. Now that idiot would reduce your overall team strength from 75% to 66%. Statistically, the more people, the stronger your overall team strength should be. Bad players and team balance should be more even with more players?
Besides all that, I would rather play 8v8 than 4v4 The more carnage and chaos the better! The best part of COH (and hopefully AOE4) is controlling large armies and actually feeling like you are managing and seeing what each unit is doing. So giant late game pushes are the payoff for some of us. Cute little flanks and cheese abilities do nothing for me. I want to see walls of death crashing into each other to then be wiped off the face of the earth with some nuke like bombs!
1v1-3v3 = sparkler.
4v4 = M80.
Yes, I have a very low IQ
you have starcraft, command and conquer and supreme commander for this.
leave coh alone
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Probably true. But 4v4 is fan service if nothing else. It's by far the largest mode with ~40% of the playerbase (if the old statistics are still somewhat accurate).
The biggest problem is that it's pretty obvious that 3v3 and 4v4 were simply never/rarely thought about during the core design process and it has left the modes with some glaring issues (resource inflation, small maps, balance problems, matchmaking problems, etc.). The dynamics could've been a lot better if Relic had had more development time/resources to invest into finetuning the framework for teamgames more, rather than developing the game for 1v1 and a bit of 2v2 and just slapping on 3v3 and 4v4 at release.
like i said: im pretty sure most people wouldnt miss 4v4 when 3v3 is available. the 4v4 crowd would be pleased with 3v3 as well.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
like i said: im pretty sure most people wouldnt miss 4v4 when 3v3 is available. the 4v4 crowd would be pleased with 3v3 as well.
How so? Roughly 40% of total players plays 4v4, with 3v3 (~30%) being available alongside it. That shows 4v4 is not only the largest mode but also that the majority of teamgames players seems to prefer it over 3v3.
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Maybe. Most idiots and droppers play 4v4. So those idiots would just move to 3v3. Now that idiot would reduce your overall team strength from 75% to 66%. Statistically, the more people, the stronger your overall team strength should be. Bad players and team balance should be more even with more players?
no, 1 out of 8 people is enough to kill your game. the matchmaking algorithm isnt forced to fill the gaps with a rank 10000 hero. those people will soon get matched with their kin if they do that often enough
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
How so? 4v4 hosts roughly 40% of total players with 3v3 (~30%) being available alongside it. That shows 4v4 is not only the largest mode but the majority of teamgames players seems to prefer it over 3v3.
yes but with an option for 3v3 max those 40% will be in the 3v3 pool.
people just want the biggest mode because they think it s th emost action. if 3v3 is the biggest mode, no problem
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
yes but with an option for 3v3 max those 40% will be in the 3v3 pool.
people just want the biggest mode because they think it s th emost action. if 3v3 is the biggest mode, no problem
That doesn't make any sense. People play 4v4 because they like 4v4. Indicated by the fact that they play 4v4 despite 3v3 being readily available. Can't just take the mode away and potentially (/likely) piss off 40% (!) of the playerbase. Players do not like to be forced to play something different from what they're used to.
They wouldn't "just move to 3v3", there would be riots. If you want a good example of this, look up the controversy surrounding Battlefield 5's 5.2 patch (here's a summary), that massively reduced the TTK that the vast majority of the community did not want reduced. It's created a huge shitstorm.
4v4 is part of the core of the CoH series. That can't be changed. It can only be improved (by properly developing 3v3 and 4v4 as separate game modes with unique features such as scalable resource economy), but that's something for a CoH3 if there's ever going to be one.
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
That doesn't make any sense. People play 4v4 because they like 4v4. Indicated by the fact that they play 4v4 despite 3v3 being readily available. Can't just take the mode away and potentially (/likely) piss off 40% (!) of the playerbase. Players do not like to be forced to play something different from what they're used to.
They wouldn't "just move to 3v3", there would be riots. If you want a good example of this, look up the controversy surrounding Battlefield 5's 5.2 patch (here's a summary), that massively reduced the TTK that the vast majority of the community did not want reduced. It's created a huge shitstorm.
you ' re right, now they can't just scrap it, but in further installments they can
4v4 is part of the core of the CoH series. That can't be changed.
of course it can. that 4v4 mode is just a remnant from a different decade
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Probably true. But 4v4 is fan service if nothing else. It's by far the largest mode with ~40% of the playerbase (if the old statistics are still somewhat accurate).
The biggest problem is that it's pretty obvious that 3v3 and 4v4 were simply never/rarely thought about during the core design process and it has left the modes with some glaring issues (resource inflation, small maps, balance problems, matchmaking problems, etc.). The dynamics could've been a lot better if Relic had had more development time/resources to invest into finetuning the framework for teamgames more, rather than developing the game for 1v1 and a bit of 2v2 and just slapping on 3v3 and 4v4 at release.
I find it extremely amusing, how Relic takes into account team games economy in DoW series, leading to very resource balanced team games, where tech pace is kept balance as well as unit abundance, yet completely ignore it for CoH series. Its as if 2 completely different companies with 2 completely different approaches balance them out.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 371
There is something called Vickers and often on 4v4s there is someone to hold the flank of your Vickers'.
Vickers doesn't cap and is useless past the third minute plus it doesn't do much damage to okw to make it useful vs more than one player and does very few things vs the ostheer
Posts: 789
Snip.
I know there is a territory_point_low in the mapmaker, but as of now it only gives one less munition per minute than territory_point_mp.
Could territory_point_low be changed to give 1 less fuel and two less munitions? Than way more points could be added to larger team game maps without inflating resources
Posts: 789
I find it extremely amusing, how Relic takes into account team games economy in DoW series, leading to very resource balanced team games, where tech pace is kept balance as well as unit abundance, yet completely ignore it for CoH series. Its as if 2 completely different companies with 2 completely different approaches balance them out.
Really?!
Then maybe if CoH3 rolls around there is hope
Posts: 556
Vickers doesn't cap and is useless past the third minute plus it doesn't do much damage to okw to make it useful vs more than one player and does very few things vs the ostheer
LOL what ??
Posts: 1220
Posts: 72
We need one easy fix just make all rocket arty doctrinal and if someone want spam then go on pick doctine becuase now its real bullshit when as axis u can go for tiger or elefant and still have arty options or if u are soviet and in same time u can get is2 and katiusha this is the biggest problem in 4vs4
Ah yes, lets gimp lategame blob control and the only AT wall counters by placing them in doctrines, it'd be better to just make landmattress and calliope nondoc and adjust things accordingly, not that it'll happen.
Posts: 2148 | Subs: 2
I know there is a territory_point_low in the mapmaker, but as of now it only gives one less munition per minute than territory_point_mp.
Could territory_point_low be changed to give 1 less fuel and two less munitions? Than way more points could be added to larger team game maps without inflating resources
As far as I know you cant change items from the worldbuilder. Possibly thru some SCAR coding. But there are a lot of people that have made maps on this forum that scream about the old vCOH system being much better. If it could be done, I assume one them would have done it by now.
Livestreams
45 | |||||
14 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, cpbigshipnet
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM