My Epiphany

Balancing 4vs4 will never break the balance of 1vs1. Ever.

Just try to give me one good example where i could be wrong. Just try...

One Example?

The Elephant or the Jagdtiger are good examples. 1vs1 they are mostly useless and 4vs4 they are OP like hell.

Arty of all kinds. Because 4vs4 has more clumped up troops, because the front a single player has to cover is smaller.

HMG`s, Paks are easy to flank in 1vs1 because of the larger front per player, that means they are stronger in team games than in 1vs1.

Medium Tanks are good flankers that makes them stronger in 1vs1 than team games. Because if you want to flank in 4vs4 you just run into the army of the enemy’s neighbor. And mediums are bad in headon fights.

Short range units like Shock trooper are better in a 1 unit vs 1 unit engagement than in large scale battles, because before they can close in they get focused down by the complete enemy army.

In 4vs4 the retreat paths are longer, that means forward retreat points are better in 4vs4 than in 1vs1.

In 4vs4 the team can carry a player until he gets out his big units.

Certain commanders have special weak points, if an WM player goes elite Doc, the soviet player can safely choose an on map arty commander because the WM Player has no off map arty in 1vs1. In 4vs4, at least one enemy player always has an off map arty to destroy on-Map artys or Pak43 emplacements.

Micro intense units like snipers are better in team games than in 1vs1 because your army is closer together means you can easier babysit them.

Heavy Tanks like King Tigers, Tigers, IS-2. If one is protecting one Victory point in 1vs1 I just take the other 2. That way I force my enemy to send his big tank all over the map. In team games the other Victory points are most likely defended by other players.

I think that are enough examples of things that just behave differently because of the different nature of the game modes. That means if the units, commanders.... are balanced in 4vs4 than they are unbalanced (OP or UP) in 1vs1.

You can play it. I didnt say that you cant. Its just how the game is designed. 4v4 is a big spam and abuse fest. And even when it isnt, its easy to stall and get into the lategame quickly. Where Axis usually dominates. Thats how it is. And thats how it probably will always be. Get over it.

I cannot agree with this statement and it is not a spam fest.
Teamplay and combination is here more effective than to stall and get into lategame quickly!

One Example?

The Elephant or the Jagdtiger are good examples. 1vs1 they are mostly useless and 4vs4 they are OP like hell.

Arty of all kinds. Because 4vs4 has more clumped up troops, because the front a single player has to cover is smaller.

HMG`s, Paks are easy to flank in 1vs1 because of the larger front per player, that means they are stronger in team games than in 1vs1.

Medium Tanks are good flankers that makes them stronger in 1vs1 than team games. Because if you want to flank in 4vs4 you just run into the army of the enemy’s neighbor. And mediums are bad in headon fights.

Short range units like Shock trooper are better in a 1 unit vs 1 unit engagement than in large scale battles, because before they can close in they get focused down by the complete enemy army.

In 4vs4 the retreat paths are longer, that means forward retreat points are better in 4vs4 than in 1vs1.

In 4vs4 the team can carry a player until he gets out his big units.

Certain commanders have special weak points, if an WM player goes elite Doc, the soviet player can safely choose an on map arty commander because the WM Player has no off map arty in 1vs1. In 4vs4, at least one enemy player always has an off map arty to destroy on-Map artys or Pak43 emplacements.

Micro intense units like snipers are better in team games than in 1vs1 because your army is closer together means you can easier babysit them.

Heavy Tanks like King Tigers, Tigers, IS-2. If one is protecting one Victory point in 1vs1 I just take the other 2. That way I force my enemy to send his big tank all over the map. In team games the other Victory points are most likely defended by other players.

I think that are enough examples of things that just behave differently because of the different nature of the game modes. That means if the units, commanders.... are balanced in 4vs4 than they are unbalanced (OP or UP) in 1vs1.

You did not give any example of balance changes done in 4vs4 that would that would not be balanced in 1vs1, sorry.But all the changes you see would rather not have much impact in 1vs1.

Thanks would be a great start.

Panthers

Balancing 4vs4 wont break 1vs1, but when there is an unbalance in 1vs1 it will be magnify in 4vs4.

It is why when you have to balance, you have to tune the greater before the smaller. Failing to do so will result will make it a lot harder to tune.

Always balance the maximum before the minimum. The complexity before the simplicity. There is no exception to that rule.

Example : It's why when making a poster picture, you always use a bigger picture and you shrink it to the desired size. If you use a smaller picture, glitch will be more apparent when you zoom it.

Same rule apply with beta testers, you have to use pros to beta test, playing a great number of games while switching sides. After that, you do the same with noobs. Doing the opposite will get you nowhere.

The same apply to computer models, games. etc.

Balancing 4vs4 will never break the balance of 1vs1. Ever.

Just try to give me one good example where i could be wrong. Just try...

Thanks.

Please remove that post as i started a thread with it in balance. thx

Great post. Can't say it better. p1us 0ne

You did not give any example of balance changes done in 4vs4 that would that would not be balanced in 1vs1, sorry.But all the changes you see would rather not have much impact in 1vs1.

Thanks would be a great start.

And I say they have a strong impact on 1vs1. But since you don`t want to discuss details, we both can just stay here and yell at each other: "I`m right and you are wrong". Just a waste of time for both of us.

You did not give any example of balance changes done in 4vs4 that would that would not be balanced in 1vs1, sorry.But all the changes you see would rather not have much impact in 1vs1.

Thanks would be a great start.

I think he did. Also, I think first, you should back up your case. Why would balancing 4vs4 not affect balance in 1v1? What exactly does it make an equivalent to: balancing with Pros -> balancing with Noobs.

Your argument goes like this:
Balancing 4vs4 wont break 1vs1
Because you tune the greater before the smaller.
Because always balance the maximum before the minimum.
Because the complexity before the simplicity.
Because there is no exception to that rule.

Then your example of shrinking a picture...wtf??

I'm sorry, but before I accept your 'rule' as universal. I'd rather take both options as equals. Your argument is circular.

My opinion is that all game modes: 1v1 -> 4v4 are equally vulnerable to adaptation of balance. This is where hagen his examples come in.
- Nerfing axis late game heavy armor appropriate to 4v4, will probably make them unviable and underpowered in 1v1. Which will probably change the whole meta-game in favor of mid-game Medium-armor, favoring the army that has the strongest mid-game.
- Paks and HMGs are indeed easier to flank in 1v1s and perhaps require a slight nerf in 4v4 to avoid campy battles and Axis advantage (due to high penetration and damage). In 1v1 this will probably make the Paks easily counterable by any light-armor, since it won't be such a threat anymore.


I think his diversity of examples better suits an argument than the sketch I gave of your argument above.

I think he did. Also, I think first, you should back up your case. Why would balancing 4vs4 not affect balance in 1v1? What exactly does it make an equivalent to: balancing with Pros -> balancing with Noobs.

Your argument goes like this:
Balancing 4vs4 wont break 1vs1
Because you tune the greater before the smaller.
Because always balance the maximum before the minimum.
Because the complexity before the simplicity.
Because there is no exception to that rule.

Then your example of shrinking a picture...wtf??

I'm sorry, but before I accept your 'rule' as universal. I'd rather take both options as equals. Your argument is circular.

My opinion is that all game modes: 1v1 -> 4v4 are equally vulnerable to adaptation of balance. This is where hagen his examples come in.
- Nerfing axis late game heavy armor appropriate to 4v4, will probably make them unviable and underpowered in 1v1. Which will probably change the whole meta-game in favor of mid-game Medium-armor, favoring the army that has the strongest mid-game.
- Paks and HMGs are indeed easier to flank in 1v1s and perhaps require a slight nerf in 4v4 to avoid campy battles and Axis advantage (due to high penetration and damage). In 1v1 this will probably make the Paks easily counterable by any light-armor, since it won't be such a threat anymore.


I think his diversity of examples better suits an argument than the sketch I gave of your argument above.

Exactly, or how can one promote a "universal rule" that makes no sense. Fixing the greater before the smaller ? WTF does that even mean ? If you nerf lategame Axis with 4v4 in mind, you simply break the 2 factions in 1v1, how can it ever cross someone's mind that it wouldn't impact 1v1 at all ?

The only thing you can change without impacting the 2 different modes are the maps. Have 4v4 maps have less income / captured point, so that lategame Axis comes online later. If you screw with the units, whatever the gamemode you aim to fix, you will screw the other in some way, since they are both so inherently different from eachother.

But if *everyone* is playing Axis, who is playing Allies? Are the Axis players doing mirror matches?

But if *everyone* is playing Axis, who is playing Allies? Are the Axis players doing mirror matches?

According to what we read on this forum, the ones playing against axis in team modes are martyrs that sacrifice themselves so that other can have good games.

Gona use Johny B. arguments plays as the USF or Soviets in 4vs4 then return and talk about it.

I think his diversity of examples better suits an argument than the sketch I gave of your argument above.

Thanks for the support.

The only thing you can change without impacting the 2 different modes are the maps. Have 4v4 maps have less income / captured point, so that lategame Axis comes online later. If you screw with the units, whatever the gamemode you aim to fix, you will screw the other in some way, since they are both so inherently different from eachother.

100% agreed.

But if *everyone* is playing Axis, who is playing Allies? Are the Axis players doing mirror matches?

The ones who accidentally switched to allies and clicked to see the %(and got instant game so they couldn't switch back to axis).

According to what we read on this forum, the ones playing against axis in team modes are martyrs that sacrifice themselves so that other can have good games.

Yeah, pretty much. The rare times you win as Allies is either because the opposing team really REALLY sucks, or because you pounded them in the early game, and it's over in 15 mins. Yay. Didn't even get to field any of my cool shit.

Yeah, pretty much. The rare times you win as Allies is either because the opposing team really REALLY sucks, or because you pounded them in the early game, and it's over in 15 mins. Yay. Didn't even get to field any of my cool shit.

Yeah, but you won... OH I see you want to dominate in the early game and late game and let the Axis players just sit in their base for an hour.

Yeah, but you won... OH I see you want to dominate in the early game and late game and let the Axis players just sit in their base for an hour.

No. No one said anything about "dominating". I want the same experience as anyone else; a fun game that allows me to use my units in the context of longer strats. If you're an Axis player, how does it feel when you start a game and within 5 mins the entire opposing team quits ? Yes, you won, but do you really get that "fuck yeah ! I won !" feeling ?

As far as I'm concerned, this game isn't, or shouldn't be about "dominating". It's a strategy game, which implies it should involve the complexities of small unit tactics, cooperation among team-mates, micro, and judicious use of commander abilities ...all of which should pay off.

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

you can't fix it or YOU just don't give a shit about 4v4. because it can be fixed, at least the most glaring issues. please don't state an opinion like it is a fact.

4v4 is a big spam and abuse fest.

each player might spam same units but even in 4v4, the team with most versatile and varied force usually wins.

And even when it isnt, its easy to stall and get into the lategame quickly. Where Axis usually dominates. Thats how it is. And thats how it probably will always be. Get over it.

yeah thank you for reminding us. a slight advantage i'm fine with. but armor nullifyer like jagdtiger and infantry nullifyer like obersoldaten are a hell and there is something that can be done about it.

As was stated previously, how do you want to fix it with little work?

Right now, 1v1 and 4v4 balance are opposing sides of the spectrum. Balancing for 1v1 makes 4v4 horrible and vice versa.

You would need to rework the maps as the map layout in 1v1 does not scale to 4v4, they are usually far more narrow and long. Less frontline works great for Axis due to PaK, MG42, MG34, Jagdtiger, Tiger, ... The longer map means it's harder to pressure with the strong USF infantry early/midgame. If you are forced off you yield for far longer than 1v1.

Resource income is another issue as do some abilities.

Yet the problem is, these scaling and map problems would need major manpower to fix. I do not think that Relic is capable of doing this.

very good point. may be axis units' popcap can be slightly larger for many units in 3v3+? and maybe relic will put some manpower on it if so many of these "dont give a shit about 4v4" people stop spewing out "4v4 will never be balanced" etc etc.

also, yes, making current big team games maps perfect will take a lot of time. but some of the maps have glaring issues that alone make the maps exponentially awful. these can be fixed literally in 5 minute, from my experience with the worldbuilder.


ps. to people who don't give a shit about big team games and have nothing better to say then "duh get over it", bugger of from topics like this that don't bother you. if big team players comment on 1v1/2v2 topics, they get shit on like 5 year old trying to butt in on a political discussion, but somehow the other way around is fine... lol.

Something that would be so rad would some kind of random element generator for the maps. For those of you who played Diablo, you know that every time you come back to a map, it will have been changed in some ways. That might be neat in this game since a lot of maps tend to be formulaic; i.e. : take this building and that building, and the game's half won. This results in a mad scramble at the beginning of the game where everyone is rushing for that building. Lienne Forest is pretty bad for that, but really all maps have that. Angermuende is also really bad for that. If somehow the maps could stay mostly the same, but just randomly move buildings around, that would be awesome.

...never mind. On second thought, the cost/ beenfit for that wouldn't be worth it. Disregard !

...never mind. On second thought, the cost/ beenfit for that wouldn't be worth it. Disregard !

And would introduce even more RNJesus whining because one game you had whatever-better-building-facing-the-good-way and the next game you didn't (or your opponent, or whatever reason to whine anyone can come up with).