3v3 and 4v4 state of the game

As the title says id like to know what the opinion of the community is , are you satisfied with the game balance in very broad terms or do you think one side has an unfair advantage . If so would you want upcoming changes of the game to take into consideration these game modes since many people are playing in those ?

As the title says id like to know what the opinion of the community is , are you satisfied with the game balance in very broad terms or do you think one side has an unfair advantage . If so would you want upcoming changes of the game to take into consideration these game modes since many people are playing in those ?

I haven't been playing a lot of 3's or 4's recently but usually when I do, I normally feel like I got outplayed when I lose. If one side is stronger, I couldn't tell you which.

Also, 3v3 and 4v4 are the same game only to people that don't play them much (or possibly don't play them well). The dynamics of 3v3 are different. I have friends who have been part of teams that were top 20 in 4v4 that won't play 3v3 because it is that different.

4v4 is an artyfest which may be unbalanceable. The best modes of balance we have for 4v4 is map changes in my opinion.

3v3 is better, and a mode I enjoy, but I find myself losing a lot of games that go over 1hr as allies, especially USF. I think it's micro fatigue mostly but maybe related to balance in a way.

4v4, and to a lesser extent 3v3, is such a mess due to match-making that attempting to balance it is basically impossible. I've been in many games where the "skill range" between the highest and lowest player is over 2500 positions on the ladder. When the skill difference is that large, the M36/Panther/*OP Unit* over-performing, or some other unit underperforming doesn't matter at all.

If there was one change I could implement, it would be to the match-making: restricting the range of players that it could put into a game. Ideally, this would work off of a scalable formula, maybe something like "+/- 150% of the highest skill player, or +/- 1000 ladder positions, whichever comes first" (I'm sure someone can come up with a better one).

For example, say the highest skill player is at position #200 and queues for 4v4. With a +/- 150% range, that means +/- 300 ladder positions; so that means this OKW player would be in a game with players rank 0-500. For a player at 2,500, the +/- 1000 would come into effect, restricting them to 1,500-3,500.

This would fix a TON of problems, both in terms of "balance" as well as player satisfaction. No one enjoys being in a game with a skill difference of over 2,500: the high-skill players are bored/waste time, and the low-skill players are hopeless.

I haven't been playing a lot of 3's or 4's recently but usually when I do, I normally feel like I got outplayed when I lose. If one side is stronger, I couldn't tell you which.

Also, 3v3 and 4v4 are the same game only to people that don't play them much (or possibly don't play them well). The dynamics of 3v3 are different. I have friends who have been part of teams that were top 20 in 4v4 that won't play 3v3 because it is that different.

+1

The major factors are: Map Size, RT vs AT, Skill Range, and Faction Load Outs.

MAP SIZE
3v3 and 4v4 differ in one major way: Map size. 3v3 maps are huge in many cases, which leads to more mobile play similar to 1v1. 4v4 maps are generally smaller and lead to more campy style play, which on some maps could be more 2v2 based.

RT VS AT
Team game commander synergy is key. So four arranged rank 1k players can beat four rank random 400 players. Figuring out recon, artillery counters, late game tank counters, working together, etc wins games.

SKILL RANGE
Already mentioned ranks are all over the place in automatch.

FACTION LOADOUTS
The biggest issue for team game balance is OKW in 4v4. They have no tools to deal with basic things like MGs, Snipers, UCs, Scout cars, mortars, etc. If OKW does not win the first engagement its gonna be a short game. Because they will slowly get pushed off the map.

If you see a match with all OKW vs Soviets and Brits, that game is over before it started on most maps.

OKW really need the Kubel to be good. So they can counter MGs, Snipers, and scout cars. But if it gets any buffs it quickly becomes stupid OP and every game is Kubel spam.

So better AT weapons and grenades are needed. AT got removed to balance 1v1. So OKW can only go a couple commanders to get back some of the basic tools they need.

Most of the OKW issues can be helped by having an OST partner. But too many times do I see all OKW teams. Or you get a bad OST partner which does not help in any way.

Balance wise I think its fair with minute nuances. The major problem plaguing the large game mode is matchmaking. Majority of the time if you play any game with your friends that have over 3k hours you still end up fighting noobs for 10 games straight. Its incredibly boring unless you play with same people for 10+ games.

The major factors are: Map Size, RT vs AT, Skill Range, and Faction Load Outs.

MAP SIZE
3v3 and 4v4 differ in one major way: Map size. 3v3 maps are huge in many cases, which leads to more mobile play similar to 1v1. 4v4 maps are generally smaller and lead to more campy style play, which on some maps could be more 2v2 based.

RT VS AT
Team game commander synergy is key. So four arranged rank 1k players can beat four rank random 400 players. Figuring out recon, artillery counters, late game tank counters, working together, etc wins games.

SKILL RANGE
Already mentioned ranks are all over the place in automatch.

FACTION LOADOUTS
The biggest issue for team game balance is OKW in 4v4. They have no tools to deal with basic things like MGs, Snipers, UCs, Scout cars, mortars, etc. If OKW does not win the first engagement its gonna be a short game. Because they will slowly get pushed off the map.

If you see a match with all OKW vs Soviets and Brits, that game is over before it started on most maps.

OKW really need the Kubel to be good. So they can counter MGs, Snipers, and scout cars. But if it gets any buffs it quickly becomes stupid OP and every game is Kubel spam.

So better AT weapons and grenades are needed. AT got removed to balance 1v1. So OKW can only go a couple commanders to get back some of the basic tools they need.

Most of the OKW issues can be helped by having an OST partner. But too many times do I see all OKW teams. Or you get a bad OST partner which does not help in any way.

You are really wrong about what you say for the OKW if you see how fast tommies die to sturmpios and ofcourse 4 okw can definitely win against soviets and brits they just need to flank with the sturmpios also being slowly pushed of the map is inconsequential when you can get panthers by minute 18-20

You are really wrong about what you say for the OKW if you see how fast tommies die to sturmpios and ofcourse 4 okw can definitely win against soviets and brits they just need to flank with the sturmpios also being slowly pushed of the map is inconsequential when you can get panthers by minute 18-20

There is something called Vickers and often on 4v4s there is someone to hold the flank of your Vickers'.

There is something called Vickers and often on 4v4s there is someone to hold the flank of your Vickers'.

Exactly. That is why I said OKW in 4v4 mode. Maps like Red Ball where two MGs lock down a whole side. If the enemy is remotely competent, OKW will get pushed off the map.

The 3v3 mode and larger 4v4 maps like Steppes provide more flanking and less MGs. So OKW can do fine in these situations.

OKW is meant to be strong early. Losing that first engagement and retreating puts them behind for a long while. Because they cant get back to the front until they tech.

Go Medic truck and hope your ISGs out perform the enemy mortars. Or use ISG smoke to push MGs. Takes a long time but gives the advantage of having that close retreat point later which is key to OKW pressure.

Go Medic truck and Halftrack. Then you need a rak to support it. Still get that late game medic truck pressure. A little fragile and you lose an early game inf squad to the rak.

Go Mechanized and make either Luchs or Stuka. Stuka pays off all game long with little micro. Luchs has shock value but requires micro and is easily countered. You lose the medic truck late game inf pressure.

By the time you get your panthers and tigers, the whole area is covered by MGs, AT guns, and mines.

If I am way off base on any of these ideas, please explain. That is why we are here. To discuss and learn. Let us delve deeper into the MG Inception Principle

I'm playing mainly 3v3 and 4vs4. I played enough games with both sides, AT and RT. My personal experience is: The more axis players are playing OKW the more likely axis team will win (of course it is always better to have one Ost player than none for building caches and diversity). OKW can blob better and has the best early blob and team-weapon wiping machine around in the big game modes (one OKW player can always go for a fast Stuka tech first without getting punished by doing so).

I think I should point out that I am not saying OKW are trash. Overall the factions seem pretty balanced. When SiphonX releases stats we usually see that win rates are pretty even. This covers a large range of players so skill usually wins out of faction.

I am saying they have a weakness in certain 4v4 maps.

In general over the last 6 months I have had more trouble finding competitive games and that makes it a little tougher to judge balance. Havn't had as much time to play since the giveaway though.

Balance does seem okay currently though. It's not skewed badly in one direction but that can vary with the skill level of the players.

I think I should point out that I am not saying OKW are trash. Overall the factions seem pretty balanced. When SiphonX releases stats we usually see that win rates are pretty even. This covers a large range of players so skill usually wins out of faction.

I am saying they have a weakness in certain 4v4 maps.

I would agree with this, But I think they are weak because they can only really rely on alot of infantry early on which is fine for 1v1, but tough to pulloff in 4v4.

I am saying they have a weakness in certain 4v4 maps.

Yeah, but on the other side there are some maps where they perform way better than Ost. I'm with you that skill is more important. We got stomped by opponents and stomped opponets by ourselves way too often. Sometimes matchmaking is a bitch (maybe a little bit too often).

Overall I do think axis have some more strong synergies for late game. Every team that paired Close the pocket at least on some maps with the right combination of other axis commanders knows how this can turn a game. Key for allied victory is constant aggression, if you sit back you will allow axis to pull some nasty late game combos.

Yeah, but on the other side there are some maps where they perform way better than Ost. I'm with you that skill is more important. We got stomped by opponents and stomped opponets by ourselves way too often. Sometimes matchmaking is a bitch (maybe a little bit too often).

Overall I do think axis have some more strong synergies for late game. Every team that paired Close the pocket at least on some maps with the right combination of other axis commanders knows how this can turn a game. Key for allied victory is constant aggression, if you sit back you will allow axis to pull some nasty late game combos.

I would take OST over OKW in 4v4 24/7

Having gotten back to 3v3+ lately casually, playing with randoms, I feel the general state of the large team games hasn't changed much.

- maps are mostly too small.
- due to the sheer number of units, strategies, and tactics available between 3-4 layers, it is basically balanced.
-heavy + rocket artillery is just as important as armours and infantry - but since the arty is more important than in 1v1 and 2v2, it does feel like arty spam = win but I have lost plenty of games for my team when I just stubbornly want to only get late-game arty units instead of tanks.

- generally satisfied. I always knew the "map problem" would never get fixed in CoH2 life-cycle. The biggest problem is the performance. I have upgraded my computer 3 times since the game came out, but once the game goes beyond 20-30m, it cannot sustain 60fps well with all the action of team games. I got used to it, but steady 60 would be nice.

I think if they had scrapped the 4vs4 mode from scratch and do 3vs3 max. it would ve been much better for the game - more map variety, better balanced maps, better for the playerpool and skill gap, less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper

And the battles are almost as big and equally exciting as in 4vs4 but less confusing and also better performance-wise

I think if they would ve scrapped the 4vs4 mode from scratch and do 3vs3 max. it would ve been much better for the game - more map variety, better balanced maps, better for the playerpool and skill gap, less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper

And the battles are almost as big and equally exciting as in 4vs4 but less confusing and also better performance-wise

+1000 There should be a poll for this.

I think if they had scrapped the 4vs4 mode from scratch and do 3vs3 max. it would ve been much better for the game - more map variety, better balanced maps, better for the playerpool and skill gap, less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper

And the battles are almost as big and equally exciting as in 4vs4 but less confusing and also better performance-wise

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.

less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper

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