My Epiphany

Nigel:
I added a section to my previous post for your consideration.

In addition to that, some more questions:
1) What % of your teamgames are with an arranged team?
2) What is your ratio of axis to allies matches in those arranged teams?
3) How many arranged matches have ypu won as either Axis/Allies?
3) Are you, or are you not, arguing that Allies is OP in 2v2+?

1) Not many
2) Pretty much the same. It's hard for me to get a group together either way, so I usually go random. The times I've won with random players is when the other team sucked bad, or we just all happened to be on the same page, and the magic happened.
3) If by arranged match, you mean with a good team using voice, as Allies, maybe 2-3 out of 10 ? As Axis, playing with randoms, not using voice comm, closer to 8/10.
4) I think you mean UP ? If that's the case, then I will say that yes, in late game they are, with the notable exception of the IS/ ISU. By itself, however, it can't really turn the tables. This ties in with my point that at 15 mins or less, you can have a good, competitive game where Allies can definitely hold their own. After that, they get overwhelmed.

Its not even primarily a faction balance problem.

Its that the game is designed and built, from the ground up, as a 1v1 system.
2v2 can just about manage, but beyond that and it really starts to show it.

Its not even just the quadratic complexity involved in a total of 8 players interfacing, its the map design, the Objective/VP nature in this specific game iteration (as compared to SC2 for example), and ofc the Commanders which with their callins and abilities lend themselves to more and more exploitation the more players you add.

Overall, in terms of RTS, I dont think we are at the development/evolution stagein the genre yet where seriously multiplayer games are possible. Ironically though, its been possible in boardgames for a long time, but that is due to a turn based nature, which RTS is not.

Its extremely complicated to create such a 4v4+ realtime strategy, and even moreso to balance it. Imo RUSE and SOASE (Sins of a Solar Empire) are the two that have pushed the envelope the most on that. Both involve a macro and micro scale. Both have also enormously pushed the interface design. Ultimately, I think the flaw resides though in all players basically doing much the same thing. Though their decisions sre different, they sre still playing the "same game". My point in that being, that for a more evolved RTS teamgame, each player should have a spexific and different role within the team, much as we do in sports for example, and also in RTS with "classes".

Know what I mean?

Anyways, in coh2, 2v2+ relies on cooordination, communication, teamplay, and deliberate exploitation of balance against your opponents same. Thats the best you can do here. The game does not systemically support the format much, so make the best of tge above, and try to roll into 2v2 max. The more players you add, the more teamowrk is required, but only for one reason: inorder to exploit balance in agame that is not balsnced in that format. Its not only not balanced, but the whole game isnt built for it. There is no even battlefield at 3v3+. Given equal micro (if even that is necessary, which in some cases it isnt), 3v3+ is all about teamwork/coordination inorder to exploit imbalance better than your opposing team. Thats what it is, when you boil it down. So dothat. Consider that the challenge.

And if you are playing random team, sorry, but you will lose. If you dont want to build a team and put in the work, come join us in 1v1.

Its not arrogance to state that. Its just how it is.

I know it's not arrogance, but that game was sold with a 3vs3 and 4vs4 team mode. We deserve the same balance and fun that there is in the others modes of play. We bought that game for that only reason.

The community have already thought of some good simple solutions to improve those modes.
Relic only have to make the statement that they are working on it to make us happy. Failure to do so will only lead to more angry customers and game uninstall. Coh2 need the 3vs3 and 4vs4 player's base to flourish. Everyone will lose it we quit definitively, the 1vs1 and 2vs2 players and Relics.

So every COH2 players need to be helping us at showing Relic the importance of improving the 3vs3 and 4vs4 team mode. Everyone will win. It's a matter of life and death for the game.

Do you like COH2, if yes then help us or at least don't work against us. As working against us is like working against you.

Thank you for your support in advance.

Beltfed:
Thats not helpful, and you are basivally acting yourself like the small group of 1v1ers you are disparaging..

I'm not. In fact my posting history is fulsome in it's praise and understanding of the CoH2 ecosystem as far as 1 v 1 is concerned.

It's never been reciprocated and the lazy hostility from many of the 1v1 Master Race is just boring. I've had enough of it. I'm personally on the point of bowing out of this forum as it's becoming an echo-chamber for the same twenty 1 v 1 trolls.

I support the claim that large teamgames should be balanced. But only if it doesn`t ruin 1vs1 balance. And in it`s currend overall design, that is not possible in CoH2. Balancing them seperatly is the only way in my opinion.

^ That's exactly what needs to happen.

I support the claim that large teamgames should be balanced. But only if it doesn`t ruin 1vs1 balance. And in it`s currend overall design, that is not possible in CoH2. Balancing them seperatly is the only way in my opinion.

If anything, then this.

I support the claim that large teamgames should be balanced. But only if it doesn`t ruin 1vs1 balance. And in it`s currend overall design, that is not possible in CoH2. Balancing them seperatly is the only way in my opinion.

+1

I'm not. In fact my posting history is fulsome in it's praise and understanding of the CoH2 ecosystem as far as 1 v 1 is concerned.

It's never been reciprocated and the lazy hostility from many of the 1v1 Master Race is just boring. I've had enough of it. I'm personally on the point of bowing out of this forum as it's becoming an echo-chamber for the same twenty 1 v 1 trolls.

No no no no ...no need for that! Patience, please, friend.

As I posted in the other thread -

Like I said to Quinn during the CoH2 beta eighteen-odd months ago, we need to honour difference. 1 v 1 is extremely important - I think it is the motherlode of the game in many ways. From that high-level scene cascades all sorts of interest, strategy and ideas.

And but...

CoH2 is meant to be enjoyed on many levels. For example, I am a classic 'hardcore casual' in that (a) I'm pretty stoked about the new Ardennes campaign and (b) I love and play a *lot* of 3v3 and 4v4 (for the reasons my friend Van Voort has already outlined above).

These two extremes are no longer compatible - using the same unit metrics for such diverse game modes is (arguably) limiting both.

I see this as an opportunity rather than a problem, though.

For starters, an elite 'Trial of Iron' 1 v 1 mode could be introduced with exclusive commanders and limitations. This would be *the* aspirational 1 v 1 tourney mode for our best players.

On the other end of the spectrum, a 'League of Generals' large game mode would unleash CoH2 into the gonzo death-fests large game players love. Balance it specifically for this. Have late-game units for both sides that would screw 1 v 1 (but it doesn't matter - they won't be *in* 1 v 1).

I genuinely don't understand why having specialisms for diverse play-styles can be seen as anything else than a boon for the game.

I really don't.

I hope Relic at least engages with us in a debate about a glaring problem with a game we all love.

I think the additional man hours to completely segregate the balance of 1v1 (and maybe 2v2) from larger game modes makes this impractical.

I cannot think of a single RTS that has ever done this. Not saying it's not a worthy goal - shoot, balancing each of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 is likely the optimal way to handle it, cost and time not being considered. But, Relic has trouble patching the game in aggregate in a timely enough manner for the community. Can you IMAGINE the wait times for patches if they tried to even double their workload (or thereabouts) patching 1s and 2s separately from 3s and 4s?

GPG didn't balance 1v1 separately from other game modes. Blizzard does not do this. Near as I can remember, no studio has ever considered it worth the investment to do this. Again, that's not to say it's not desirable. But I think it's highly unpractical and not likely to ever happen.

^ I don't know if it's an impossible dream but the fact that nobody else has done it strikes me as a good reason *to* do it.

They could start with small tweaks and work up. It's a feature, after all. Not screwing with 1 v 1 is something we all agree on, this isn't an either / or argument.

1) Not many
2) Pretty much the same. It's hard for me to get a group together either way, so I usually go random. The times I've won with random players is when the other team sucked bad, or we just all happened to be on the same page, and the magic happened.
3) If by arranged match, you mean with a good team using voice, as Allies, maybe 2-3 out of 10 ? As Axis, playing with randoms, not using voice comm, closer to 8/10.
4) I think you mean UP ? If that's the case, then I will say that yes, in late game they are, with the notable exception of the IS/ ISU. By itself, however, it can't really turn the tables. This ties in with my point that at 15 mins or less, you can have a good, competitive game where Allies can definitely hold their own. After that, they get overwhelmed.

I think having said that, you also recognise your core problem...

You need teammates.

2v2+ is a team game.
Team is the operative word.
You need a functional team to manage.

As I pointed out, the more players you add, the less it is a about functional equal balance,, and the more it is about exploiting imbalance WITH your team, against their same efforts.

1v1 is different. Its the simplified core system.

In 2v2+, its no longer about primarily about balance, its a bout you and your team exploiting imbalance, in cooperation/communication/planning, better than your opposing team.

As long as you continue to random, you will have a bad time.
Its a teammgame in your chosen format. You need a team.

Im sorry, but thats how it is.

Voltar:
I dont think the simple solutions, are actually that simple as you presume them to be.
I understand your desire for a balanced 2v2+ system, but I dont think its possible.
They may look simple on paper, but I imaigne there arr coding problems involved that restrcuture a game built essentially to extend from 1v1.

Id rather suggest you focus on you and your teammates just improving cooperation/communication and planning out your contingiencies and matches, in order to beat your opponents who are doing the same.

In CoH2 teamplay, its not about balance.
Its about teamplay to exp,pit imbalance betternthan your opponent.
You are just gonna have to accept that.

^ I don't know if it's an impossible dream but the fact that nobody else has done it strikes me as a good reason *to* do it.

They could start with small tweaks and work up. It's a feature, after all. Not screwing with 1 v 1 is something we all agree on, this isn't an either / or argument.

But how would we the community feel about a patch cycle 2-4 times slower than it already is? Relic only have so many man-hours to code and balance, after all

In CoH2 teamplay, its not about balance.
Its about teamplay to exp,pit imbalance betternthan your opponent.
You are just gonna have to accept that.

Sounds about right. One player finds one imbalance to exploit, the other player finds another imbalance that works well in combination with the first player. This strat is a perfect example, and this is only a 2v2 which is far more balanced than 3v3/4v4. http://www.coh2.org/topic/3612/me-hissy-soviet-strat

But how would we the community feel about a patch cycle 2-4 times slower than it already is? Relic only have so many man-hours to code and balance, after all

That's a fair point, but Rome wasn't built in a day. CoH2 has a long life-cycle planned, and it'll be even longer if they get the most popular game modes right.

That's a fair point, but Rome wasn't built in a day. CoH2 has a long life-cycle planned, and it'll be even longer if they get the most popular game modes right.

3v3 is my favorite game mode, and Allies my favorite side. I honestly haven't grokked the USF yet in a meaningful way, but I would love to feel that I had viable solutions to things like the Luchs, Kubel and fast Pumas. As USF, I seem to win matches very quickly by forcing the enemy team to quit/surrender, or am on the back foot the entire game.

I just feel like "balance everything separately" is kind of a castle in the sky. Even Blizzard, with several times the income and team size (I'd assume?) chooses to not balance their larger team matches separately from 1v1s, and at least the last time I played StarCraft, it was widely acknowledged that team games were not balanced for all races.

I know of no RTS where balance was maintained across all game modes. I do hope to see some additional rebalancing done to tanks, including hopefully fuel reduction for the t34/76 or su-76, and maybe a penetration increase for the SU-85?

yes, 3v3s and 4v4s are unbalanced. but balancing units for these gamemodes would ruin the 1v1 and 2v2 balance completely, as other people have pointed out. while mostly playing 2v2, i understand the players, who want to play large teamgames .
probably the easiest way to better the balance would be, to reduce axis fuel income after a certain minute by a certain percent for 3v3s and 4v4s.
this would better the balance by quite a bit, at least in my opinion, because it would prevent or delay the axis tank spam. other than that, i dont think that there are easy ways to do it.

yes, 3v3s and 4v4s are unbalanced. but balancing units for these gamemodes would ruin the 1v1 and 2v2 balance completely, as other people have pointed out. while mostly playing 2v2, i understand the players, who want to play large teamgames .
probably the easiest way to better the balance would be, to reduce axis fuel income after a certain minute by a certain percent for 3v3s and 4v4s.
this would better the balance by quite a bit, at least in my opinion, because it would prevent or delay the axis tank spam. other than that, i dont think that there are easy ways to do it.

And allied tank spam doesnt exist?

yes, 3v3s and 4v4s are unbalanced. but balancing units for these gamemodes would ruin the 1v1 and 2v2 balance completely, as other people have pointed out. while mostly playing 2v2, i understand the players, who want to play large teamgames .
probably the easiest way to better the balance would be, to reduce axis fuel income after a certain minute by a certain percent for 3v3s and 4v4s.
this would better the balance by quite a bit, at least in my opinion, because it would prevent or delay the axis tank spam. other than that, i dont think that there are easy ways to do it.

While that may be a good solution, I don't want it to be like "you are playing axis, here is this penalty for you!" type of thing

And allied tank spam doesnt exist?

it does, absolutely. but in my experience, this is not the problem. axis have quite an edge in 3v3 and 4v4 and allies can only really spam medium tanks.
they might get one or two isu152s, which are overpowered in my opinion, but at least one of the axis players should be able to get a jagdtiger or an elephant, which are much more potent at AT in my experince, correct me if im wrong.

While that may be a good solution, I don't want it to be like "you are playing axis, here is this penalty for you!" type of thing

its not a penalty, its a design choice for teamgames, look at it like that. just like fuel reduction for okw, it increases balance...