My Epiphany

To have an idea of actual balance u need people that can get the full potential out of units and unit combinations. U need experts.

3v3 and 4v4 experts aren't really easy to find, especially because it's not something that is considered to be top notch competitive.

What is possible though: take a look at balance from 4v4 and actually NAME the imbalances. Then take a look at the 1v1 scene and where do the same issues occur.
(EXAMPLE: is USA lategame really too weak? and is there a possibility to bring some more lategame power?) (And reduce earlygame if that lategame extra turns out to be too overwhelming)

The imbalances that occur in team games, especially beyond 2v2s can vary extensively from team to team and from map to map.

Team synergy (or lack thereof) makes such an incredible impact on performance in 3v3s and 4v4s. Synergy between factions also plays a huge role. (Is it four Americans or four soviets or a mix? Are they up against 3 OKW and an Ost dedicated to OPing? Or is it four soviets versus four ostheer?) Every permutation of the factions facing off provides a different set of tools.

There is a component of min/maxing and dedicated roles that are non-existent in 1v1s and barely possible in 2v2s.

But most of all, what really sets team games in an awkward position is map design. The issues with territory and map control are amplified the more players are involved, especially where CPs and resources are concerned.

Meaningful cutoff points, strat points, resource variance, etc.

Kind of on a related note: why don't we have a pre-game lobby anymore ? In the old days, you could at least chat a bit before the game, and hammer out some strategies.

But most of all, what really sets team games in an awkward position is map design. The issues with territory and map control are amplified the more players are involved, especially where CPs and resources are concerned.

Meaningful cutoff points, strat points, resource variance, etc.

Ikr,

But that's just proper map creating/balancing. It's an area where Relic still can focus on to improve the gameplay for the 3v3/4v4 players.

And how much damage does this weapon do to a bridge has the opposing faction the same tools etc ...

Axis dominating in big teamgames? No shit. It will be unbalanced, it always was. You cant fix it. Get over it.

Wow this is an ignorant attitude. Are you seriously telling me that you like the idea that one side can ALWAYS win, given equivalent skill levels on both sides, so long as the game lasts more than 15 minutes? If you are, then what you're saying is that the complex balancing process that took place with vCOH isn't going to be repeated with COH2. I agree with the OP. Me and my COH2 teammates only play 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 4 games. I can't be bothered to play 1 vs. 1, because a lot of the fun of this game is playing with friends on the same team, and coming to their aid or receiving their assistance in a tight spot. There's no other gaming experience I enjoy as much as putting on my headset, skypeing into a group call with one or two or even 3 friends, firing up COH2, having a short briefing on who's going what faction, coordinating possible complementary commanders, and hearing the background chatter as I push on towards my objective, while overhearing their triumphs and setbacks on the battlefield, or an urgent call for reinforcements at a decisive turning point in the match. It's like you're a tank commander and you're overhearing the cries of triumph or destruction of your comrades in real time.

If you kill the inherent balance of the sides, you're killing the entire game as far as a huge number of COH2 players are concerned, 1 vs. 1 or even 2 vs. 2 notwithstanding.

for such an "epiphany" its not really well thought out, presented and tbh im not sure it even can be qualified as an epiphany.

my opinion on the topic non withstanding. he has every right to make this thread reguardless of your/my/bob joe's opinions about it. if a moderator thinks a thread is breaking of the rules he will deal with it. posting "off topic" in the thread isn't the proper way to handle this we have a report button for that. also someones trash may very well be someone else's treasure.

if you think a thread is breaking the forum rules please use the report button. if you dislike the contents for whatever reason. there is the option to ignore it or explain why you disagree.

TL;DR
Show Spoiler

It's his epiphany, and he's entitled to it.

It's his epiphany, and he's entitled to it.

Subject to Moderation guidelines.... I am sure you understand that also....?

Wow this is an ignorant attitude. Are you seriously telling me that you like the idea that one side can ALWAYS win, given equivalent skill levels on both sides, so long as the game lasts more than 15 minutes? If you are, then what you're saying is that the complex balancing process that took place with vCOH isn't going to be repeated with COH2. I agree with the OP. Me and my COH2 teammates only play 3 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 4 games. I can't be bothered to play 1 vs. 1, because a lot of the fun of this game is playing with friends on the same team, and coming to their aid or receiving their assistance in a tight spot. There's no other gaming experience I enjoy as much as putting on my headset, skypeing into a group call with one or two or even 3 friends, firing up COH2, having a short briefing on who's going what faction, coordinating possible complementary commanders, and hearing the background chatter as I push on towards my objective, while overhearing their triumphs and setbacks on the battlefield, or an urgent call for reinforcements at a decisive turning point in the match. It's like you're a tank commander and you're overhearing the cries of triumph or destruction of your comrades in real time.

If you kill the inherent balance of the sides, you're killing the entire game as far as a huge number of COH2 players are concerned, 1 vs. 1 or even 2 vs. 2 notwithstanding.

Im not saying that i like it, im trying to say that is nigh impossible to balance these gamemodes because of existing balance issues multiplying with each player more in the game. Balancing 1v1 is not that easy already, and people demand perfect balance for 4v4's. As it is now (and probably will always be the case), its easy to stall and get into the lategame quickly. Which usually means Axis dominance.

Large teamgames might be fun for some people (they really arent to me, because they dont pose a personal challenge at all imo), but you cant expect Relic to try to balance these modes without screwing up the smaller gamemodes, that are driving the community here. We wouldnt be anywhere, if 1v1 / 2v2 tournaments and streams didnt exist. Barely anyone wants to watch 3v3 / 4v4 streams and the organization of such tournaments is a nightmare.

You could say that they should do seperate balance, but this would mean that it probably would slow down the balancing process, due to the lack of personnel. Remember, Relic is a relatively small studio and atleast they are trying to balance the important gamemodes. This comes with the consequence that larger, casual gamemodes are unbalanced. If i had the choice, id balance the smaller modes anyday.

as for a soloution for team game balance i suggest resource scaling:

as for balanceing the different game modes i think they should make resources and resource gain scale (decrease) depending on the amount of players but that probably isn't a new idea.

It's his epiphany, and he's entitled to it.

i can't tell if you read the second paragraph.

Im not saying that i like it, im trying to say that is nigh impossible to balance these gamemodes because of existing balance issues multiplying with each player more in the game. Balancing 1v1 is not that easy already, and people demand perfect balance for 4v4's. As it is now (and probably will always be the case), its easy to stall and get into the lategame quickly. Which usually means Axis dominance.

Large teamgames might be fun for some people (they really arent to me, because they dont pose a personal challenge at all imo), but you cant expect Relic to try to balance these modes without screwing up the smaller gamemodes, that are driving the community here. We wouldnt be anywhere, if 1v1 / 2v2 tournaments and streams didnt exist. Barely anyone wants to watch 3v3 / 4v4 streams and the organization of such tournaments is a nightmare.

You could say that they should do seperate balance, but this would mean that it probably would slow down the balancing process, due to the lack of personnel. Remember, Relic is a relatively small studio and atleast they are trying to balance the important gamemodes. This comes with the consequence that larger, casual gamemodes are unbalanced. If i had the choice, id balance the smaller modes anyday.

Don't generalized, cause i think quite the opposite... The game would flourish more, if the team modes where more balanced.

The problem with 3v3s and 4v4s is that no faction is really designed to cope with any amount of 2v1 action.

You can double and triple team players in these game modes, and all you really sacrifice is one or two territory points amounting to a measly few points of fuel or munition for a given period of time.

How do you balance that?

Map design for games greater than 2v2 is a challenge because it either becomes a series of concurrent 1v1s, or a situation where an otherwise competent player gets facerolled by a second player's entire army and loses 1000ish manpower in one maneuver.

That's a challenge to recover from, and it's not really something that's easily preventable or countered. This game just isn't designed to have players facing superior numbers. The main/only counter to that is to have your own team simultaneously double team the opponents.

But ultimately, the whole strategy behind virtually every metagame decision is just reaching the critical mass of firepower, and no one player alone can field units faster than multiple opponents. The fact that maps overlap for 3v3s and 4v4s doesn't help, because it more or less leaves it to be a diceroll to how well balanced the front lines are every game.

Don't generalized, cause i think quite the opposite... The game would flourish more, if the team modes where more balanced.

This is where a lot of the hostility between 1v1/2v2 and 3v3/4v4 players comes from. Does focusing design and balance on 1v1 and 2v2 with some balance drifting up to 3v3 and 4v4 attract more players than focusing balance on 3v3 and 4v4 at the sacrifice of 1v1 and 2v2?

Historically speaking 1v1 and 2v2 attract more players to a RTS game than 3v3 and 4v4. Relic has already stated on the official forums that they realize this and will continue to focus their efforts on 1v1 and 2v2. The problem with 3v3 and 4v4, is that games are hard to cast with so much going on and is hard to watch with the clutter of 8 players' units. Tournaments are hard to run and organize due to having ot have 8 peoples' schedules line up. RNG can be more punishing in team games. If all 4 of you form a concentrated attack of infantry on one side a walking stuka/call-in arty/or Katyusha barrage could wipe the majority of your squads resulting in all of you having massive MP lose.

The game currently has more casual than competitive players and unfortunately the problem with casual players over competitive is that competitive players will stick with a game longer than casuals. Casuals drift more freely from game to game and this can lead to the game base collapsing, competitive players do play other games but they invest a significant amount of more time into this game than casuals. Balancing for casuals might see a small player base increase for a few months, but a year form now, the game will be dead and stale. Balancing for competitive players might hit the player base at first as the casuals get frustrated with the competitive players, but as tournaments and more videos start up the player base will thrive. Casuals will want to try being a little competitive and will play more to get better, competitive players will be practicing and when both of these groups need a break form 1v1 and 2v2 they will go over to 3v3 and 4v4 for some mass unit chaos.

Can 3v3 and 4v4 be more balanced? Yes, but will it being balanced at the cost of 1v1 and 2v2 help the game grow more? No.

The problem with 3v3s and 4v4s is that no faction is really designed to cope with any amount of 2v1 action.

You can double and triple team players in these game modes, and all you really sacrifice is one or two territory points amounting to a measly few points of fuel or munition for a given period of time.

How do you balance that?

Map design for games greater than 2v2 is a challenge because it either becomes a series of concurrent 1v1s, or a situation where an otherwise competent player gets facerolled by a second player's entire army and loses 1000ish manpower in one maneuver.

That's a challenge to recover from, and it's not really something that's easily preventable or countered. This game just isn't designed to have players facing superior numbers. The main/only counter to that is to have your own team simultaneously double team the opponents.

But ultimately, the whole strategy behind virtually every metagame decision is just reaching the critical mass of firepower, and no one player alone can field units faster than multiple opponents. The fact that maps overlap for 3v3s and 4v4s doesn't help, because it more or less leaves it to be a diceroll to how well balanced the front lines are every game.

Good post and I very much agree. The way 4v4 maps are set up, the focus is generally on two points. Vp's are conveniently located next to another important resource such as fuel or ammo. THis devolves the game into 2 2v2s or 1 3v3, etc. The lack of other meaningful objectives turns the game into a meatgrinder. This de-incentivizes flanking and strategic play.

You made it an Axis vs Allies issue though, rather than a 3v3+ game issue.

Its a veiled "buff" Allies post, no matter how you cut it.

As far as I can see, Ballsworth (OP) made no effort to conceal the fact that his essential issue was with balance. There was no 'veil' covering his request to improve the balance in 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4. Now you can simply read this as a request to buff Allies, which he didn't make, or you can read it as a request to ensure that the factions are balanced enough to scale properly. It's your choice, but I can tell you I share his experience and frustrations with 4 vs. 4. The Soviets have no decent infantry-carried AT, like panzershreks, and since the only Soviet infantry that can even remotely face Sturmpios and Ubersoldaten are Shock Troops, I must only use Soviet Commanders with Shock Troops, and since Shock Troops get no AT options whatsoever, I must make it a key aspect of my strat to steal shreks from the Germans, because they're the only ones with decent AT. Even the American Bazookas (which I'm still grateful to pick up, if ever, just to give my Shocks some AT capability) are pitifully nerfed compared with the shreks, which doesn't make any sense considering the German armour is heavier, not lighter, than most of the Allied armour. Try hitting a Panther with a bazooka and see what I'm talking about. It's stupid.

Can you see the problem here? Germans flooding the map with ultra heavy tanks, and the Allies equipped with either no infantry-carried AT or only pitifully weak AT. This problem is fully illustrated by the fact that, even with nearly equal map control (ie. fuel, ammo points), if the Germans survive past about the 15 minute mark, it's practically GG right there. And don't tell me to use Soviet AT guns, which are not only uselessly weak, but get decrewed in the twinkling of an eye. Again, I find myself having to try to steal German AT guns just to have a decent non-infantry carried AT ability.

When you have to make it a key aspect of your strat that you MUST rely on stealing infantry-carried weapons of your opponents, you KNOW there's a balance issue.

This is where a lot of the hostility between 1v1/2v2 and 3v3/4v4 players comes from. Does focusing design and balance on 1v1 and 2v2 with some balance drifting up to 3v3 and 4v4 attract more players than focusing balance on 3v3 and 4v4 at the sacrifice of 1v1 and 2v2?

Historically speaking 1v1 and 2v2 attract more players to a RTS game than 3v3 and 4v4. Relic has already stated on the official forums that they realize this and will continue to focus their efforts on 1v1 and 2v2. The problem with 3v3 and 4v4, is that games are hard to cast with so much going on and is hard to watch with the clutter of 8 players' units. Tournaments are hard to run and organize due to having ot have 8 peoples' schedules line up. RNG can be more punishing in team games. If all 4 of you form a concentrated attack of infantry on one side a walking stuka/call-in arty/or Katyusha barrage could wipe the majority of your squads resulting in all of you having massive MP lose.

The game currently has more casual than competitive players and unfortunately the problem with casual players over competitive is that competitive players will stick with a game longer than casuals. Casuals drift more freely from game to game and this can lead to the game base collapsing, competitive players do play other games but they invest a significant amount of more time into this game than casuals. Balancing for casuals might see a small player base increase for a few months, but a year form now, the game will be dead and stale. Balancing for competitive players might hit the player base at first as the casuals get frustrated with the competitive players, but as tournaments and more videos start up the player base will thrive. Casuals will want to try being a little competitive and will play more to get better, competitive players will be practicing and when both of these groups need a break form 1v1 and 2v2 they will go over to 3v3 and 4v4 for some mass unit chaos.

Can 3v3 and 4v4 be more balanced? Yes, but will it being balanced at the cost of 1v1 and 2v2 help the game grow more? No.

I believe it's a mistake to assume that 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4 players are 'casual'. I've been playing COH since 2006, on average several matches per week, and I've never really been interested in 1 vs. 1, and only rarely have I played 2 vs. 2. Am I a 'casual' player? Why don't I play 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2? Because for me, the game stops being a 'game' when there are enough random elements introduced to eliminate the predictable, causality of a small match: in short, it's more like real war, rather than chess, which I find infinitely more stimulating. It's boring to me to realize only 5 minutes into a match that, because you didn't take the 'farm house', you've lost, and it's GG. Utter stupidity as far as I'm concerned. In a 4 vs. 4, if you are having trouble taking the 'farm house', you can ask an ally to provide reinforcements, while still leaving 2 other teammates to continue with other objectives, and possibly reverse a potentially serious setback without simply having to 'GG' and start again. Or you could find that enemy has allocated 3 players worth of troops to take an objective rather than only one player's worth of troops -- the random element is much greater with more players. In a 1 vs. 1, you know EXACTLY how much force your opponent can possibly have, and the only variable will be where they are. Boring IMHO. Kind of like being able to count cards. I crave the sheer unpredictability of war. It's like playing chess, but your opponent might have 3 bishops instead of 2, or 2 queens and no knights, etc.

In addition, as I mentioned in an earlier reply, I find the chatter of comrades over the headset adds a level of verisimilitude that's missing if you're by yourself, or only communicating with one other ally. The chaos of trying to get your colleagues' attention during a crucial battle event is something that's utterly missing in a 1 vs. 1. I'm sure I'm not the only player who craves that kind of auditory battle-atmosphere. In fact, I think a future version of COH should require players to connect their headsets into the game engine itself, so that if/when one of the 'radio intercept' abilities is activated, you can actually listen in to the chatter of opposing team for a few seconds without them knowing. Yeah, I know there are potential issues with this (people refusing to patch in, and using skpye instead, players not speaking the same language, etc.) You could require the players to patch in to the game with headsets before the match starts, and use voice-pattern recognition to force them to really do it or the game will not start/or it will stop in mid-match, but I digress.

I believe it's a mistake to assume that 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4 players are 'casual'. I've been playing COH since 2006, on average several matches per week, and I've never really been interested in 1 vs. 1, and only rarely have I played 2 vs. 2. Am I a 'casual' player? Why don't I play 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2? Because for me, the game stops being a 'game' when there are enough random elements introduced to eliminate the predictable, causality of a small match: in short, it's more like real war, rather than chess, which I find infinitely more stimulating. It's boring to me to realize only 5 minutes into a match that, because you didn't take the 'farm house', you've lost, and it's GG. Utter stupidity as far as I'm concerned. In a 4 vs. 4, if you are having trouble taking the 'farm house', you can ask an ally to provide reinforcements, while still leaving 2 other teammates to continue with other objectives, and possibly reverse a potentially serious setback without simply having to 'GG' and start again. Or you could find that enemy has allocated 3 players worth of troops to take an objective rather than only one player's worth of troops -- the random element is much greater with more players. In a 1 vs. 1, you know EXACTLY how much force your opponent can possibly have, and the only variable will be where they are. Boring IMHO. Kind of like being able to count cards. I crave the sheer unpredictability of war. It's like playing chess, but your opponent might have 3 bishops instead of 2, or 2 queens and no knights, etc.

In addition, as I mentioned in an earlier reply, I find the chatter of comrades over the headset adds a level of verisimilitude that's missing if you're by yourself, or only communicating with one other ally. The chaos of trying to get your colleagues' attention during a crucial battle event is something that's utterly missing in a 1 vs. 1. I'm sure I'm not the only player who craves that kind of auditory battle-atmosphere. In fact, I think a future version of COH should require players to connect their headsets into the game engine itself, so that if/when one of the 'radio intercept' abilities is activated, you can actually listen in to the chatter of opposing team for a few seconds without them knowing. Yeah, I know there are potential issues with this (people refusing to patch in, and using skpye instead, players not speaking the same language, etc.) You could require the players to patch in to the game with headsets before the match starts, and use voice-pattern recognition to force them to really do it or the game will not start/or it will stop in mid-match, but I digress.

+1 I totally agree. Really captured the reasons why people play teamgames. It is silly to generalize all teamgame players as "casual".

Radio Intercept? HOLY SHIT!!

RELIC!! TAKE NOTE!!

Radio Intercept? HOLY SHIT!!

RELIC!! TAKE NOTE!!

what happened to radio intercept

This is where a lot of the hostility between 1v1/2v2 and 3v3/4v4 players comes from. Does focusing design and balance on 1v1 and 2v2 with some balance drifting up to 3v3 and 4v4 attract more players than focusing balance on 3v3 and 4v4 at the sacrifice of 1v1 and 2v2?

Historically speaking 1v1 and 2v2 attract more players to a RTS game than 3v3 and 4v4. Relic has already stated on the official forums that they realize this and will continue to focus their efforts on 1v1 and 2v2. The problem with 3v3 and 4v4, is that games are hard to cast with so much going on and is hard to watch with the clutter of 8 players' units. Tournaments are hard to run and organize due to having ot have 8 peoples' schedules line up. RNG can be more punishing in team games. If all 4 of you form a concentrated attack of infantry on one side a walking stuka/call-in arty/or Katyusha barrage could wipe the majority of your squads resulting in all of you having massive MP lose.

The game currently has more casual than competitive players and unfortunately the problem with casual players over competitive is that competitive players will stick with a game longer than casuals. Casuals drift more freely from game to game and this can lead to the game base collapsing, competitive players do play other games but they invest a significant amount of more time into this game than casuals. Balancing for casuals might see a small player base increase for a few months, but a year form now, the game will be dead and stale. Balancing for competitive players might hit the player base at first as the casuals get frustrated with the competitive players, but as tournaments and more videos start up the player base will thrive. Casuals will want to try being a little competitive and will play more to get better, competitive players will be practicing and when both of these groups need a break form 1v1 and 2v2 they will go over to 3v3 and 4v4 for some mass unit chaos.

Can 3v3 and 4v4 be more balanced? Yes, but will it being balanced at the cost of 1v1 and 2v2 help the game grow more? No.

I agree that the balance act of 3vs or 4vs4 must not disrupted the 1vs or 2vs2, but there are many proposed solutions on the table that should touch only the late elements that are not used much in those mode. anything that touch units that come at 10+ command points should be less disruptive for 1vs1 or 2vs2. Example, Selling/adding some US faction's commanders who are better suited for 3vs3 and 4vs4 would not upset the 1vs1 or 2vs2 game modes.( At-Armor specialist or Air superiority specialist with abilities gear toward the end game of 3vs3 or 4vs4 team mode.)


The balance is not that hard to rectify, but there are also many justify fears about it. But i think that if i would do it right, Relic's devs can also. They can do many things to balance the game without upsetting what is already balanced. All changes must be done in small steps and at regular intervals.

I would be the happiest COH2 players if i could switch sides and factions and have the same fun i had when i was doing it in COHO.

The last patch had been a good start toward balancing 3vs3 and 4vs4. But unit's versatility and commander's choice are still lacking and must be increase on the allied side to improve their fun factor and appeal. The auto-match should then be more even and the waiting shorter on the Axis side.

The community must be less emotive about balance and be more pragmatic. Those changes are needed and must be done carefully. The game will then improve for all.

P.S : I don't know anyone who play 4vs4 that is not competitive player. Everybody are trying hard to win and hate losing. COH2 is not casual players friendly, it's a niche game, it's a complex game made for people who like to work more with their brain. Maybe the campaign mode is more casual, (I known know, i never played it) but automatching is not casual in any mode. So i think it's better for all that we stop the casual vs competitive debate, it won't lead anywhere. A 3vs3 or 4vs4 balanced mode with equally fun factions to choose from, should be as much popular than 1vs1 or 2vs2, i can bet on it.

Let's have some faith in Relic, hopping that the waiting won't be too long.
Let's us then smile at the bright future that COH2 will have with more a united community.

Thanks.

+1 I totally agree. Really captured the reasons why people play teamgames. It is silly to generalize all teamgame players as "casual".

+500