My Epiphany

3v3's / 4v4's usually require less skill to play. Why? Because youre not on your own, if you fail to play successfully there is still someone else to back you up. If there isnt, then its very likely that you will lose the game. But i hope you know what i mean.

From my very own playing experience, and not with only Randoms but with clanmates vs another clan too, i can can say that i barely need the knowledge, the micro, the general game awareness that i need in a 1v1 or 2v2.

Thats because, as already mentioned, 1v1 or 2v2 feels more like chess. You need to know the game. And you need to know how to control the game, you need to have micro skills and a sense of macro. I think that you gain more skill by playing the smaller gamemodes. Because they pose a way greater challenge than big gamemodes do. I can assure you that a 4v4 team of dedicated 1v1 players will smash a team of dedicated 4v4 players.

4v4's have been and probably will always be, giant slugfests, with a lot of fuel caches and a very quick lategame. And then it becomes a giant tank battle.

1v1's and 2v2's however, are more about game knowledge, timing and careful planning. They simply require more user input.

And when people think of multiplayer RTS games, the majority surely thinks of competetive, skill based games. 4v4's simply arent capable of providing that experience. Because they werent designed that way and they dont play like that.


To any dedicated 4v4 player out there, i recommend trying out the smaller gamemodes extensively. You then may realize that they may be based around smaller skirmishes, but the skill cap is set higher and the tension that comes with a close game, will feel higher too. And the satisfaction that comes with it.

I dont think that you can judge the gamemodes if you didnt try them in ranked automatch.

I disagree that it requires "less skill". Why? Because there are more units on the field so your attention has to be more focused. You have to be prepared to help your teammates out/react to other opponents strategy and tactics.

3v3's / 4v4's usually require less skill to play. Why? Because youre not on your own, if you fail to play successfully there is still someone else to back you up. If there isnt, then its very likely that you will lose the game. But i hope you know what i mean.

From my very own playing experience, and not with only Randoms but with clanmates vs another clan too, i can can say that i barely need the knowledge, the micro, the general game awareness that i need in a 1v1 or 2v2.

Thats because, as already mentioned, 1v1 or 2v2 feels more like chess. You need to know the game. And you need to know how to control the game, you need to have micro skills and a sense of macro. I think that you gain more skill by playing the smaller gamemodes. Because they pose a way greater challenge than big gamemodes do. I can assure you that a 4v4 team of dedicated 1v1 players will smash a team of dedicated 4v4 players.

4v4's have been and probably will always be, giant slugfests, with a lot of fuel caches and a very quick lategame. And then it becomes a giant tank battle.

1v1's and 2v2's however, are more about game knowledge, timing and careful planning. They simply require more user input.

And when people think of multiplayer RTS games, the majority surely thinks of competetive, skill based games. 4v4's simply arent capable of providing that experience. Because they werent designed that way and they dont play like that.


To any dedicated 4v4 player out there, i recommend trying out the smaller gamemodes extensively. You then may realize that they may be based around smaller skirmishes, but the skill cap is set higher and the tension that comes with a close game, will feel higher too. And the satisfaction that comes with it.

I dont think that you can judge the gamemodes if you didnt try them in ranked automatch.

You have your opinions, but i find them rather short sighted.... your not helping anyone with that kind of comments.

Ty.

I disagree that it requires "less skill". Why? Because there are more units on the field so your attention has to be more focused. You have to be prepared to help your teammates out/react to other opponents strategy and tactics.

I suggest to play a couple of ranked 1v1 vs good opponents first, then you can see and judge.

You have your opinions, but i find them rather short sighted.... your not helping anyone with that kind of comments.

Ty.

I am trying to encourage people trying other gamemodes aswell. I dont think that its justified to judge about gamemodes even if you didnt played them once in a ranked / competetive environment.
I did it in all gamemodes across my whole CoH1 and CoH2 playtime. And thats pretty much my conclusion. Youre not helping the 1v1 players if you suggest things for 4v4's, do you?

I suggest to play a couple of ranked 1v1 vs good opponents first, then you can see and judge.

ah yes the old play more games argument. never responding to the comments except by using "L2P", "play more", or "play against good people"

ah yes the old play more games argument. never responding to the comments except by using "L2P", "play more", or "play against good people"

Dude, excuse me, but you simply cannot judge a thing you didnt try out yet! Its not possible!

Dude, excuse me, but you simply cannot judge a thing you didnt try out yet! Its not possible!

of course! Yes! But I don't think what you have been saying about 4v4 and 3v3 has been helpful either. You keep making these blanket statements that 4v4 players are causals or lack skill which is very untrue. My friends and I can invite you to play with us! You will see that we are very competitive and are actually very good players

Also telling people to play 1v1, and 2v2s in lieu of 3v3 and 4v4s doesn't really help. Telling people that "4v4 and 3v3 will never be balanced" like it is God's word isn't helping as well. I know you have good intentions, but telling others to try something else doesn't fix the broken balance of the bigger team games. What I am saying is, please help in brainstorming ideas that you think will solve 4v4 balance issues while keeping 1v1 intact. Since you have a lot of experience in 1v1s, I am sure you can think of different ways to accomplish this. A whole bunch of us 4v4 players, including me, have tried to come up with good solutions. Please join us in fixing this broken mode

of course! Yes! But I don't think what you have been saying about 4v4 and 3v3 has been helpful either. You keep making these blanket statements that 4v4 players are causals or lack skill which is very untrue. My friends and I can invite you to play with us! You will see that we are very competitive and are actually very good players

Also telling people to play 1v1, and 2v2s in lieu of 3v3 and 4v4s doesn't really help. Telling people that "4v4 and 3v3 will never be balanced" like it is God's word isn't helping as well. I know you have good intentions, but telling others to try something else doesn't fix the broken balance of the bigger team games. What I am saying is, please help in brainstorming ideas that you think will solve 4v4 balance issues while keeping 1v1 intact. Since you have a lot of experience in 1v1s, I am sure you can think of different ways to accomplish this. A whole bunch of us 4v4 players, including me, have tried to come up with good solutions. Please join us in fixing this broken mode

Ofcourse i keep making these statements. They reflect my opinion that has developed throughout my gameplay experience in all gamemodes. Would it be justified to make these statements if i didnt try out 4v4 in both a casual and competetive environment? No!

I am able to compare because of my very own experience and you cant because you didnt try that part of the game yet! I know that this sounds harsh, but it is how it is.

As for fixing 4's, i dont think there is a good solution for it. You would need to change the armies, the balancing process and a couple of game mechanics completely. CoH1 was made and balanced around the small modes, and so does Relic with CoH2. Youre basically having 4 armies per team balanced for 1v1's and 2v2's. And this simply cannot work. For it to work, you need to change the game fundamentally in favour of the big modes. This would have negative consequences for the longetivity of the game. Dont forget, the majority of popular community streams, guides and other events is based around the small modes, because people feel that this game has been made for just that. And so do i.

Thats why i dont see the point in brainstorming ideas for 4v4's. You need to change the game completely and that wont happen.

I honestly think balancing 1v1 perfectly would result in pretty balanced 4v4.

I honestly think balancing 1v1 perfectly would result in pretty balanced 4v4.

thats definitely debatable and very much map dependent i feel. coh2 is kind of interesting since balance is extremely map dependent.

as for team games, i can definitely say that the difficulty of the game decreases as the number of players increases. i've played rather a large amount of 2v2s, but i have ventured a bit into 1v1s and also have played enough organized team games to get a good feel for it.

True, but I definitely think perfect 1v1 balance could not possibly *hurt* 4v4 balance at least. So it seems to me a logical first step.

Maps play a massive and are a very overlooked aspect of game balance. The 4v4 maps in general aren't very great but taking the time to rework the maps and make new ones to add variety will take far too much time.

I think adding new maps to the game is just a matter of setting up a way for the community to do it.

Some of the community maps are great, better than most of the Relic made maps but it's very difficult to get players to try something other than what they are used to.

I'm hoping modding will be available soon, many of the bugs can be fixed with a simple tweak in the attribute files and the community can do a better job at that too.

Well I meant a way for community maps to get into automatch rotation so it would require basically no effort for players to start seeing them. I honestly don't know why the community spotlight maps are not in automatch. I can't even imagine someone at relic citing balance concerns with a straight face.

I don't understand why they don't make fuel caches only feed the player who built them - it wouldn't solve everything but would slow down the tech in all modes above 1v1 and should (I think) give a little more time for the allied players to use earlier game strength shifting the balance back towards allies a little.

This would appear to me to be a very obvious way of shifting this balance without impacting on any unit v unit gameplay.

3v3's / 4v4's usually require less skill to play. Why? Because youre not on your own, if you fail to play successfully there is still someone else to back you up. If there isnt, then its very likely that you will lose the game. But i hope you know what i mean.

From my very own playing experience, and not with only Randoms but with clanmates vs another clan too, i can can say that i barely need the knowledge, the micro, the general game awareness that i need in a 1v1 or 2v2.

...

that's probably because you were playing 2 2v2s.

I suggest to play a couple of ranked 1v1 vs good opponents first, then you can see and judge.

Iv'e played many 1v1 games. I can require more skill sometimes. But so can other game modes

Many times i have had to fight of 2 or more players with little help while playing a 4v4.

Lastley, 1v1's are boring as hell.

If you u get cutoff for more than t2 minute without fuel. its gg

U lose a critical house GG

U lose a squad in an early engagement GG

u make a mistake and u hit a demo resulting in a whiped squad GG

You were truck pushed for the first minute of the game. resulting in u losing your fuel GG

i can go on...

4v4's feel like ur actually playing a fun game, random things can happen. its chaotic. Get a good team of people, Have some epic winstreaks, and it becomes hard to go back to 1v1's for casual fun.

There is a reason its the most popular game mode. (with the top 200 player of each faction)

I played some 1v1 in CoH1 but it was never appealing for me. A loss was a lot less frustrating and a win was much less rewarding compared to what I feel in team games.

I think most people play 2v2 and up because they like to work together with people. A win is much more rewarding when you can share it with someone.

Other than that I think Romeo is very reasonable with what he is suggesting.