Main game mode to balance COH2?

As the title of the pool says I'd like to know what's the opinion of the users on COH2.ORG. Balancing COH2 is an hard thing to do and getting a perfect balance for all the game modes (1vs1,2vs2,3vs3 and 4vs4) is even harder to achieve, due to the number of variables/builds that you have to take into account, the different map design, the increased amount of units overall and of possible Commanders combinations/sinergies.

So, for which game mode would you like to see COH2 balanced the most? Just vote and if you want express your opinion, preferably in a short answer (no wall of texts please, I'd like to keep this pool/discussion short and simple). You are welcome to discuss about it together replying to each other if you feel like btw.

Have fun!

PS: I will directly moderate this thread if people start spamming/flaming/arguing too much with the each other. As I said I just want short and simple answers :3

Very complex question, all modes depend each.

mostly play 1v1 so I care about that the most,

but is there any way that balancing could be done so that different tweaks took effect for different # of players? Certain units or abilities that clearly have disproportionate values in 2v2 or 3v3 could be toned down, or else prices adjusted, but only in those game modes,

or is something like that absolutely impossible given the structure of the coding?

I can't think of a single RTS that had well-balanced team modes.

1v1 and 2v2s should be the priority imo

I'd like to see 1v1 and 2v2 at least close to balance. I think that is the core. 3v3 & 4v4 can go off the rails rather quickly in a game ... no fault to the unit balance.

i voted for 2v2 balance but, teamgames really dont matter,it isnt starcraft where you can get imba combos like forcefield+baneling by having different races in your team , just limit max number of defensive structures in the map at the same time like bunkers and make cargo trucks only give resources to the owner, only things that are broken in team games, and everything will be fine

I just want to know people opinion on that based entirely on their desires

i wish there was a way to make resources work better in 2v2 3v3 4v4 maybe the more people the less resources you get

and i also think that alot of casuals love spamming units and something that alot of players did in coh1 and loved it so taking that way might be sad for them.

I voted 1v1, since I imagine that's the most competition based game mode? Not just that, but I think that balancing 1v1 will have the best affect on other modes rather than vica versa.

1v1

1v1 2v2 should be the core mode to balance.

Like the poll

1v1 and 2v2 in mind. While 1v1 could be the most "competitive", 2v2 allows the usage of different combinations and units you would probably never see on 1v1 due to lack of versatility.

Short version:

All modes are important, but what balance means varies by mode


My objective would be:

Balanced for 1v1, tending to favour Soviets as more players get involved.


Reasoning (sorry for wall of text, but I think it's important. If necessary I will start a thread for that discussion)


All versions are important because we all paid money for this, but what balance means varies on what mode you play and what you seek.


For what I would call for want of a better word "Competitive" players balance means equal chances for both sides given equal skill


For "Casual" players, however balance means roughly equal wait times for each faction.


Usually Competitive play 1v1 and 2v2 and casual play team games, or perhaps more accurately Competitive play only really happens 1v1 and 2v2 wherehas Casuals play all modes.


Further, more people express a preference for Germans, and that is probably more true of the Casual players.

While it varies by time zone (and Soviets seem to be more popular when the US and Europe are sleeping), I don't think there is any serious objection to the idea that the Soviets are not the glamourous faction.

Even in the days of 1CP shocks and Soviet Industry I don't recall every seeing search results come back 90/10 or 80/20 in their favour.

Therefore Soviets need to be slightly favoured to get more people to play them, but it would be best if that only happens for team games.

I abstained BTW

2v2 or middle between 1v1 and 2v2.

I personally think that 2v2 is the *best* gamemode in terms of skill. 1v1 may require the highest pure player skill, but 2v2 needs a high level of communication and coordination while still not being too spammy.

Alternatively:
1v1 and add scaling factors (res income, buildtimes) for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4.

1v1 is the most delicate balance scenario and thus deserves to have the most time spent on it.

The objections of the 3v3/4v4 crowd is that Relic has a history of looking at 1v1's and choosing the "easy" (read: lazy) balance choices with no consideration for their other (read: majority) playerbase.

Frankly, if Relic simply divided the resource income of OP points/opels between players than team games would instantly become more balanced IMO.

1v1 balance is most important in my view since the competitive scene is mostly in 1v1.

It might be interesting to reduce the resource income and pop cap in team games to emphasise team work and avoid exploitative usage of stronger units.

Team games would in that case be closer to the balance struck in 1v1.

I can't think of a single RTS that had well-balanced team modes.

AoE2/AoE3 always felt pretty balanced when it came to team games.

That being said, 1v1 balance should be the #1 priority since it is, and always will be, the most competitive mode.

1v1 for the most part has a trickle down effect but just balancing 1v1 means that there will always be OP probably best to balance around 1v1 and 2v2 now that i think about it.

i think a negative resource modifiers for team games (2v2,3v3,4v4) could be really cool in terms of balance.