What should Relic do to increase allies-players?

After a 3vs3 against double Wermaht and OKW what i need as an US player is more artillery options early mid game for those campy bunker spaming German players, that wait for the Tiger and make 6 pionners to repair those Tigers.

As is an established fact, Relic builds its games from 1v1 upwards.

As a result of this, certain elements become emminently exploitable the more players there are in a match.

My suggestion is to find teammates, discuss and plan with them. Find a way to synergise your builds, choices and actions to defeat the opposing team.

There seems to have been an enormous upswing in 2v2+ players since WFA, or atleast they are more vocal now.

I hate to say it, but 2v2+ is ALL about teamwork. Second to that, its all about exploiting Commanders and builds across your team, as hard and deliberately as possible.

When you step into the 2v2+ arena in Relic games, its less about balance, and more about how you exploit it. That takes communication, teamwork, and deliberate builds/plans. Thats just how it is.

As a now largely USF player, I can say in full confidence that a Pershing commander would probably not increase the number of allies players dramatically in the long run.

Strategies and exploits are one thing but, a lack of Artillery early mid game is another, a little buff to the Mortar Halftrack could help.

Anyways, even if there truly is a significant preponderance of Axis players (which I dont believe and havent seen evidence for tbh), then whats the problem for Allies?

It just means as Allies you spend less time searching for a match.

Surely thats a good thing for Allies?

Anyways, even if there truly is a significant preponderance of Axis players (which I dont believe and havent seen evidence for tbh), then whats the problem for Allies?

It just means as Allies you spend less time searching for a match.

Surely thats a good thing for Allies?

That is largely one of the reasons I now prefer USF. Very fast wait times.

But it's still disappointing, because I feel with less players searching for random teammates for 2v2, I'm more likely to be teamed with someone who is less skilled than I, which makes laddering difficult. Although I probably shouldn't care about random teammate ladders...

That is largely one of the reasons I now prefer USF. Very fast wait times.

But it's still disappointing, because I feel with less players searching for random teammates for 2v2, I'm more likely to be teamed with someone who is less skilled than I, which makes laddering difficult. Although I probably shouldn't care about random teammate ladders...

Pro Tip : Dont expect random 2v2 to ever be serious!

Sneakking: Yeah, Im glad you realise that.

As I said above, and as dasheepeh points out, 2v2+ is a whole different game, massively reliant on planned and active realtime teamwork.

Please dont make the mistake many unfortunately do, of accusing the game of balance issues when they themselves are playing random matches with no teamplay or planning whatsoever inorder to "win".

2v2+ is all about deliberately, plannedly and interactively exploiting the fk out of the balance system with your teammates. Thats how you win.

Random, is at best, an opportunity to meet future real teammates to play with.

2v2+ is a "TEAMGAME". You will not win without working together, unless they carry your ass over oceans and mountains, or you carry them,, both of which is frankly equally shitty for the other teammates.There is no escaping ehat that entails in terms of teammwork.

Its a bitter realisation for many players, who unfortunately draw the wrong conclusions from expecting to win when they dont plan or interact with their teammate at all. Just doesnt work that way.

I dont mean you, cos you know it, but these boards are frequently pestered by players who really, sadly and a bit pathetivally, dont understand this simple core issue.

This game has been build with 1v1 in mind.
2v2 it's the most balanced mode from team modes but even there I wouldn't expect it to be 100% as a lot depends from your team mate and your coordination. That's why it's hard to even spot balance issues in these games.
Can you ever be certain that the problem you had last game was due to game imbalance or was it due to lack of team play.

3v3 and 4v4 are just funfairs. I don't even know why people are having these ideas of these modes being balanced. No to mention the skill difference.
The truth is a lot of people are playing 3v3 and above because they're getting their arses kicked in 2v2 and 1v1.
True story. Been there, done that.

This game has been build with 1v1 in mind.
2v2 it's the most balanced mode from team modes but even there I wouldn't expect it to be 100% as a lot depends from your team mate and your coordination. That's why it's hard to even spot balance issues in these games.
Can you ever be certain that the problem you had last game was due to game imbalance or was it due to lack of team play.

3v3 and 4v4 are just funfairs. I don't even know why people are having these ideas of these modes being balanced. No to mention the skill difference.
The truth is a lot of people are playing 3v3 and above because they're getting their arses kicked in 2v2 and 1v1.
True story. Been there, done that.

hey I like to play 4v4 because I enjoy the big, epic, and hectic battles Maybe 4v4 isn't on the balance priority list but hey it would be great if it was!

Yeah team games require cooperation and communication. too bad 90 percent of those games, no one ever speaks a word not even a "hello". These game types are also hard to balance because there are more variables to account for. But as I said before, it would be nice if it was balanced

The core design of the Soviet faction is completely undermined in team games, much to the same extent OKW is with Ostheer.

Soviets are designed to be half crippled and half indomitable. Combine that with teamwork, and you're facing a force with no weaknesses. (Without teamwork there's potentially just a meaty mob for killing, but that's regardless of faction.) The whole strategic depth of the all the factions are completely turned on its head outside of 1v1. However, this is most pronounced with the Allied factions, and most obvious with the Soviets.

Ostheer is probably the most complete and balanced faction in it's own right. It has all the units you need to respond to any army makeup before any commander choice. How competent they are at this comes very much down to player skill.

Soviets, on the other hand, are designed around fielding dedicated hard counters. This by default puts them on the back foot against the Axis because it punishes Allied initiative. The same way an Axis player can cripple themselves by building a couple paks in anticipation of a t70 or t34 that never comes, a Soviet player can cripple themselves by choosing the wrong commander or tier building to handle what ze Germans are fielding.

Except the paks don't come at the cost of doctrine choice, nor are they a potential detour in teching/build order. The Soviets get locked in and invest a prohibitive amount of resources towards their choice.

You get rewarded in a good game as Axis. You avoid punishment in a good game as Soviets.

I don't own either the Americans or OKW, so I can't speak too much on either faction. I just have two friends that play OKW frequently that I've seen how Ostheer/OKW teams synergize like crazy.

This game has been build with 1v1 in mind.
2v2 it's the most balanced mode from team modes but even there I wouldn't expect it to be 100% as a lot depends from your team mate and your coordination. That's why it's hard to even spot balance issues in these games.
Can you ever be certain that the problem you had last game was due to game imbalance or was it due to lack of team play.

3v3 and 4v4 are just funfairs. I don't even know why people are having these ideas of these modes being balanced. No to mention the skill difference.
The truth is a lot of people are playing 3v3 and above because they're getting their arses kicked in 2v2 and 1v1.
True story. Been there, done that.

For all our clan it's only 3vs3 and 4vs4 that matter.

The difficulty level derived for the human factor and the unit's synergies is high, it's challenging. Those modes are more for people who like team based sports... Please try it with some pals and a good voice chat.

The defeats are more catastrophic but the win are more epic !!! and it's beer's time after while discussing of the game.

They are 2 different beasts. 1vs1 is like single tennis or boxe and (2+ vs 2+) are more like American football, soccer, hockey or double tennis e.t.c. One is solo , the other is team based.

Both modes of play need the same love from the devs.

Thanks you.

I get what you mean, except that doubles in tennis is still a fun and competitive game. Different, but still a contest. Tennis ain't just 1v1.

Just a bit more resources balancing is needed.

The Allie's factions aren't the real problem.

Americans are fine : They are just a lot more harder to play. But when one master them, he become a real killer. Versatility,subtlety and smoke are the key here.

Soviets are fine : They are a bit easier to play, but also a bit less fun too. Raw power of the numbers,bombardments and doctrinal's choices are the prevalent here.

The real problem is: Too much fuel. (Exacerbated by the number of players and the size of the map.)

1-The fuel's income increase resulting from the resources being shared in team and aggravated by the fuel caches.(major effect)

2-The great Axis's synergy with the fuel resource. (major effect)

3-Bunkers without pop cost helping to standoff without diminishing the numbers of tanks available to be build. (lesser effect)


Those facts lead to the current meta in 3vs3 and 4vs4 : (With teams of the same level of ability)

The Axis must standoff Allies until they have enough fuel to build walking stukas and the likes and/or heavy tanks. (Bunkers + mgs + mortars + paks + panzershreks and Flak truck)

The Allies to win, must break that standoff before it's too late .(The Axis heavies tanks start rolling out and blobbing).

If the Allies are to succeed at breaking that standoff, they must use all resources available to build theirs armies strength and thus wont build as many resources caches as the Axis.

Currently. Allies don't have enough time to break the standoff before the walking stukas an/or Heavies tanks come in.

Proposed solutions :

1-The logic to have the same resources ration balance in (4vs4/3vs3/2vs2) than in 1vs1 would be to divide the resource income : By the number of player or by a map's predetermined factor.

(OR)

2-Just reduced the part of fuel resources coming from fuel caches that is shared with the team. only the part coming from the cache. (Maybe not enough ?)

(OR)

3- Disable resources caches or reduce their effect the more there is build.(Diminishing return)

That could reduce the systematic caches building, lead to more infantry play and give a bit more time for the allies to prepare for the inevitable tanks.

Thank you.
Comments ?

I get what you mean, except that doubles in tennis is still a fun and competitive game. Different, but still a contest. Tennis ain't just 1v1.

Good point, i will add that to the team play.

Thank you.

The current random 4v4 scene is a bit bleak for Allies at the moment, largely because of the huge player base searching for Axis. If you have a decent 4v4 ELO as Axis (very easy to accomplish in this game mode because of abundance in late game super heavies), you'll most likely be matched up with players around that rank simply because there are a lot of them searching with you.

In fact, you'll know that the longer you wait, the worse your opponents will be as automatch attempts to put together 4 random allied players further AWAY from your ELO rating. Automatch doesn't seem to try to match up "balanced" teams as searching gets longer. I was matched with the SAME 2 Axis players (both in top 50) 3 times in a row fighting various Allied players in ~2000 ELO range. This will result in rather easy wins for you.

Conversely, if you're searching random 4v4 as Allies, you'll get a game much faster but your team might not necessarily be around your rank; chances are they're at much lower rating since there aren't a lot of you searching. In most cases, you'll be going up against teams with much higher collective ELO ratings, for reasons I stated above.

I know ELO rating isn't everything because of things like server issues, random disconnects, dropouts, etc., but this is the pattern I've seen after doing many random 4v4s for a few weeks.

im going to have to give the same answer as before voltar, youre not considering the consequences of modifying fuel income.

reduced fuel income slows down the rate at which players can tech. the example i used before was german t2. while allies would still have early access to wc51 and m3, the counter to those units, the pak40, would be delayed if fuel income was reduced.

slowing down tech would also make medium tanks harder to build and also make their timing even closer to heavy tanks. if you have no fuel, why spend it on teching when you can just save it and call in a heavy at about the same point in the game? people already play this way, your change would only make it worse.

these are issues relic is already having to deal with after their changes. soviet t3 was made more expensive, now the t70 shows up too late and the t34/85 shows up shortly after a player could have a t34/76. the result is people rarely build t70s and also rarely bother teching.

so as i said before, changes will have to be much bigger than simply cutting fuel income. in my opinion, if you wanted to really slow down the game, it would require new unit costs, teching costs, and even rearranging what units are in what tiers.

woof u make a good point. slowing down teching could even add to the reliance of call-ins

im going to have to give the same answer as before voltar, youre not considering the consequences of modifying fuel income.

reduced fuel income slows down the rate at which players can tech. the example i used before was german t2. while allies would still have early access to wc51 and m3, the counter to those units, the pak40, would be delayed if fuel income was reduced.

slowing down tech would also make medium tanks harder to build and also make their timing even closer to heavy tanks. if you have no fuel, why spend it on teching when you can just save it and call in a heavy at about the same point in the game? people already play this way, your change would only make it worse.

these are issues relic is already having to deal with after their changes. soviet t3 was made more expensive, now the t70 shows up too late and the t34/85 shows up shortly after a player could have a t34/76. the result is people rarely build t70s and also rarely bother teching.

so as i said before, changes will have to be much bigger than simply cutting fuel income. in my opinion, if you wanted to really slow down the game, it would require new unit costs, teching costs, and even rearranging what units are in what tiers.

Sorry, your arguments don't make sens to me.

Also i'm not talking of (no fuel) But only making it more like the 1vs1's fuel income. Not exactly like, but more like only.

Why is the game balanced in 1vs1 with the fuel at X1 and for team based play the fuel income need to be higher (a.k.a X2,X3 or X4 ).

Why the walking stuka come sooner in 4v4 then in 1vs1 ? Or why there is more heavies units in 4vs4 than in 1vs1 ?

Its clear to me that a higher than 1vs1's fuel income favored the Axis more.

The units are the same in all modes of play only the fuel income change.(Aka more fuel income)

So, there is no need to change the units, only the fuel need to be adjusted so it's a bit more like the 1vs1 'fuel income.

The munition resource is more balanced as both faction can use it nearly equally. ( i could live with a reduction too)

I hope you better understand my point of view.

Thank you as usual for you comments.

I see 2 big problems with lowering fuel income:

1. Pushing Axis assaulting power out of the game.

Tanks are good for assaulting fortified positions and are somewhat necessary for Axis who lack infantry smoke to assault fortified Allied positions. If you elongate the time for Axis to get tanks then Allied support crews and infantry can lock down the majority of the map and fortify them to where it is impossible for Axis infantry to breakthrough.

2. Making games go too long.

Games right now for 1v1 and 2v2, average from 20-40 minutes and 3v3 and 4v4 games, average 30-60 minutes. Extending fuel times slows down tech, and can slow down the game. So if you slow down VP gain to compensate then you have the problem of games going longer than a hour. I haven't watched much Esports, but will people really want to watch the same game for over a hour? The unfortunate thing about RTSs is that games go much longer than a lot of other competitive Esport genres. Therefore they have to cut the game times down enough to where people won't lose interest in a single game.