My Epiphany

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.

+1

Really, if you don't give a shit about team games or how to balance them, then don't fucking post that you don't care, or how it will never be balanced. if you don't care about 4v4 or 3v3, simply don't post.

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.

That's because there are almost no balance changes done for 4v4 as the focus seems to be 1v1. This makes it rather hard to list any

All that comes to my mind right now was in WFA Alpha as USF and OKW especially have scaling problems. OKW gets better the bigger the game size, while USF gets weaker simply due to their faction and unit design.

What are the units you think are unbalanced in 4v4 right now and would you buff or nerf them?

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.

I don't think more popcap would be so easy to do since AFAIK Relic has any 'modifiers' for specific gamemodes. That means they would have to clone all the different units for each gamemode as well as the whole underlying structure. That in turn would make it far more complicated to track changes to a unit, as you'd have to change the version for each size and in general greatly increase the complexity for just a little gain.

If you already put that work in, I'd rather have them focus on the roots of the problems instead of trying to fight the symptoms. We talked to Relic about it in the past, but like I said, I think they lack the manpower. The community is requesting a ton from them, which they literally can't do. That's why for most "petitions" where people ask for something I say no. Tons of people here tend to live in a dream world and say I want this, I want that, I want everything. "Yes, new units", "Yes, Soviet redesign!", "Yes, Obs mode!", "Yes, improved War Spoils mode (Trading or crafting)", "Yes, ingame Twitch showcase", "Yes, performance improvements", "Yes, better balance", "Yes, new maps", "Yes, more community interaction / replying to posts in the forums", "Yes, new factions", "Yes, new commanders", ...

Just imagine out of all, you could only choose 2 or at max 3 things. Now you might understand Relic a bit better. They simply do not have the capabilities to do everything and by requesting some luxury features and pressuring them into adding them by directly sending messages to their higher-ups you sacrifice other improvements. Is it really worth it? Personally I think the 3 things that should be priorities right now are performance, bugfixing and obs mode. Yes I know that sounds FUBAR as 4v4 has been a problem since start and is still not fixed, but Relic committed to ESL event and a failure of that would hurt the company as a whole. The first two points still benefit all of the community, only the third one is mostly for 1v1 and 2v2 players. After that's done, go redo the maps and the scaling.

Just some examples from the recent days (Last 8 pages of the CoH2 subforum)

http://www.coh2.org/topic/24518/noun-relic-sega-huge-appeal--epic
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24503/nighttime-versions-of-maps
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24424/let-s-talk-soviet-faction.
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24337/most-requested-unit-in-coh2-history...
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24468/next-possible-changes-for-soviet-fraction.
http://www.coh2.org/topic/22168/war-spoils-%E2%80%93-a-quick-update-by-relic (Replies, not OP)
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20460/soviets--a-core-faction-discussion
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24440/opponent-faction-filter
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24065/a-simple-solution-to-have-a-more-people-playing-allies
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24409/we-need-allied-war-machine-back
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24305/option-to-ditch-the-mgmortar
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24278/coho-bulletin-crafting-profitability
http://www.coh2.org/topic/24255/alternate-ui--eh

I know that this is basically a troll thread, but what OP said can be true both ways. If you're ever just stuck frustrated as one faction, try another. There are 4 factions in this game, why limit yourself just to 1 or 2? I didn't play Soviet till like 2 months after I started playing because I was more comfortable playing Ostheer, and quickly found that Soviets were my favorite faction.

That's because there are almost no balance changes done for 4v4 as the focus seems to be 1v1. This makes it rather hard to list any

All that comes to my mind right now was in WFA Alpha as USF and OKW especially have scaling problems. OKW gets better the bigger the game size, while USF gets weaker simply due to their faction and unit design.

What are the units you think are unbalanced in 4v4 right now and would you buff or nerf them?



I don't think if more popcap would be so easy to do. I don't think Relic has any 'modifiers' for specific gamemodes. That means they would have to clone all the different units for each gamemode as well as the whole underlying structure. That in turn would make it far more complicated to track changes to a unit, as you'd have to change the version for each size and in general greatly increase the complexity for just a little gain.

If you already put that work in, I'd rather have them focus on the roots of the problems instead of trying to fight the symptoms. We talked to Relic about it in the past, but like I said, I think they lack the manpower. The community is requesting a ton from them, which they literally can't do. That's why for most "petitions" where people ask for something I say no. Tons of people here tend to live in a dream world and say I want this, I want that, I want everything. "Yes, new units", "Yes, Soviet redesign!", "Yes, Obs mode!", "Yes, improved War Spoils mode (Trading or crafting)", "Yes, ingame Twitch showcase", "Yes, performance improvements", "Yes, better balance", "Yes, new maps", "Yes, more community interaction / replying to posts in the forums", "Yes, new factions", "Yes, new commanders", ...

Just imagine out of all, you could only choose 2 or at max 3 things. Now you might understand Relic a bit better. They simply do not have the capabilities to do everything and by requesting some luxury features and pressuring them into adding them by directly sending messages to their higher-ups you sacrifice other improvements. Is it really worth it? Personally I think the 3 things that should be priorities right now are performance, bugfixing and obs mode. Yes I know that sounds FUBAR as 4v4 has been a problem since start and is still not fixed, but Relic committed to ESL event and a failure of that would hurt the company as a whole. The first two points still benefit all of the community, only the third one is mostly for 1v1 and 2v2 players. After that's done, go redo the maps and the scaling.

Thank you for taking the time to write your detailed post Milka.


I agree that it will take work to properly balance 4v4. With ESL partnership announced, it is important to iron out the balance things, and bugfixes to make the game ready for competitive play.

That being said, a lot of the flak they have been getting about not doing this or doing that could be "softened" by better communication. Obviously they cannot spill the beans out some projects, but I think increased communication can go a long way. Most of their comments about things are vague and leave the player guessing. They need to be clearer on what they are working on. This will give the impression that Relic is primarily focusing on a prject rather than leaving the player to guess what is being done.

And for things that could probably be fixed in short amount of time (not a developer so pls correct me if I am wrong) that affects 4v4 and not 1v1 (as much as least?)

1. Some maps are imbalanced.
Some have glaring issues that do not require a whole redesign of the map. For example, the right VP at City 17 is closer to the northern spawn point. Shifting this a little closer to the bottom or western side should help. Another example is Faceoff at Rostov. Opening up the crossings should go a long way in balancing the map.

2. jagdtiger
I think that making Jgtiger not shoot through objects should help 4v4 but won't affect 1v1 too much

These things should be fairly quick to implement. I can only think of these two things for now, but I think they should not affect 1v1 too much (especially the part about changing 4v4 maps)

I wouldnt hold my breath for any real 3v3+ balance.
Relic has never, in any of its releases, cared much for it.

Its just how it is.

Not that there cant be discussion on it, but Relic just have never built their games that way.
Same trend for 1v1 oriented balance has been a recurrent and persistent theme in all their releases and subsequent balancing.

Id strongly urge those who for some reason dont want to play 1v1, to focus on 2v2.

That is near enough for perhaps somethinf to be done, and you dont have to suffer and be frustrated by 3v3+ systemic imbalances.

I wouldnt hold my breath for any real 3v3+ balance.
Relic has never, in any of its releases, cared much for it.

Its just how it is.

Not that there cant be discussion on it, but Relic just have never built there games that way.

And its good they way it is. Atleast they can focus on the gamemode that is attractive to experienced, long term players and not on the game mode that is made for the casual crowd.

I dint know about that.

But yeah, Relic games are not designed/built/balanced for 3v3+.

When you start adding that many players, there are things that really need to have been considered right feom the start.

It really cannot be overstated enough how completely different games 1v1 and 4v4 are.

Though Im a 1v1 guy myself, Ive read many posts from 3v3+ players, and tend to agree that it certainly is a large playerbase, and potentially a better "future" in terms of RTS genre development. But, its also much harder to design and balance, especially the more factions you add.

Even at 2v2 already, the game changes immeasurably, for a multitude of reasons and factors.

Id urge 3v3+ players to try and see id they cant make do with 2v2 instead.
Better that, than constantly frustrating themselves on a pipedream of balance for those modes.
There is still the teamplay element, and balance is closer to its core 1v1 design in those.

And its good they way it is. Atleast they can focus on the gamemode that is attractive to experienced, long term players and not on the game mode that is made for the casual crowd.

oh wow. me and my crew have been playing 3v3+ since open beta at least a game a day (averaged out). i also know many other crews who play 3v3+ frequently since long time ago. but god forbid if we want a balanced game. nope. all the attention and work should be devoted to the minority 1v1 players.

maybe if 3v3+ would be balanced enough, it'll become more competitive.

p.s. thx milkacow for the info. my suggestion only sounds simple but really hard to implement. and i know they have a lot on the plate. but 3v3+ players do deserve balanced game as much as 1v1 players.

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

What happened? Did the dude move your cheese.

Arrogance like this is part of the problem, and will be the death of this so-called 'community.'

What happened? Did the dude move your cheese.

Arrogance like this is part of the problem, and will be the death of this so-called 'community.'

You kinda get arrogant and pissed when you see these 3v3 / 4v4's popping up everywhere. People asking for proper teamgame balance. It may be justified at first, but only to the point where you realize that its not possible.

That the games weren't balanced for 3v3/4v4 in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. I have to say I feel they should be focused on more.

Want to focus on the gamemode with most games played? That's 2v2.
Want to focus on the gamemode with most players? That's 4v4.

To me this huge focus on 1v1 in regards to attention was always weird to a degree. 1v1 players tend on average to play more games, so they might be more attached to the franchise and have a higher chance to buy additional content than others, I don't know. Never really took a look into that matter. Yet even though it has neither most games played, nor the biggest playerbase 1v1 is getting more support than all other gamemodes combined. Tournaments (SNF, Alienware, ...) are usually 1v1. The balance is centered around 1v1. Faction design seems to be centered around 1v1. Most maps exist for 1v1. Obs mode is mostly for the 1v1 crowd.

All this has created quite a divide / split in the community. 1v1 players see themselves as the only experienced / competent players and regard the higher gamemodes usually with disrespect, sometimes outright hostility. I don't get why, without the 3v3/4v4/vsAI/SP playerbase I do not think this game could be even slightly profitable and therefor exist. So while so many of the 1v1 players complain about balance, 4v4 players, that CoH2 should be more of an e-Sport and less casual-friendly, their own financial contribution probably can't even suffice for that.

You kinda get arrogant and pissed when you see these 3v3 / 4v4's popping up everywhere. People asking for proper teamgame balance. It may be justified at first, but only to the point where you realize that its not possible.

Of course it is possible.

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 that this is basically a troll thread, but what OP said can be true both ways. If you're ever just stuck frustrated as one faction, try another. There are 4 factions in this game, why limit yourself just to 1 or 2? I didn't play Soviet till like 2 months after I started playing because I was more comfortable playing Ostheer, and quickly found that Soviets were my favorite faction.

No, it's not a troll thread. I did not write that post to elicit negative reactions or inflame popular opinion. I was reiterating what others had said re: balance in large team games, while also stating that by perfecting your micro as Allies, you might still lose, but it will make you an outstanding Axis player afterwards; beyond the usual cheesy Axis strats. If you had read the post, you might have realized that this implies that I did try other factions (Ostheer). The only one I haven't played so far is OKW.

And its good they way it is. Atleast they can focus on the gamemode that is attractive to experienced, long term players and not on the game mode that is made for the casual crowd.

Nice. What percentage of people who play this game qualify as experienced, long-term players ? What business model recommends alienating the remaining percentage that fall into the "casual" category ?

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.

Do you play with established teammates that youhave planned with and communicate with on voice during match?

Edited to add:

Furthermore, its extremely common, and normal, to subjectively experience that its easier when you swap faction if you have been playing only one till that point.

This is for many reasons, such as:
- You already having overcome the initial learning curve for the game overall that you had to endure at startbwith initial faction. Your experience is colored by that. It WAS harder, but not because the faction was shit, but because you where still a noob.
-You understand the fsction you came from initially better when facing it, thanks to having played it. This is what makes playing all factions so important. Its easier to play against it, when you know it. Until you swtiched, you didnt really actually know what you where playing against intimately, only by proxy of engaging them.
-Swapping factions for the first time invigorates your brain. Its new challenges, new opportunities, new ways to achieve the goals. Commonly known as "beginners luck", somehow people playing a game for the first time (in this case from a new perspective, but with your old knowledge/experience added) can achieve some incredible results.
-Also, because you have no ELO as that faction (I think), you are playing vs generally easier opponents when you switch. I dunno the exact system for Coh2, but in DOw2 you needed 10 mqtches to get ranked, so you might meet noobs or complete pros. This leads to some players becoming xompletely frustrated, and others sailing throughout orgasmically.

LOL. Let's look at the majority of 'hardcore' 1 v 1 players.

* They bitch like schoolgirls about DLC and won't buy it

* The buy the base-game and no expansions as playing the comp ain't their thing

* They are in a tiny minority

* Yet their arrogance and rudeness towards others stymies any real sense of community

* They are generally the least helpful towards others and spam L2P or emotes everywhere. You know who you are.

So let's re-cap: they spend no money and are an active impediment to a mainstream community. They are in a minority.

LooooooL! And Relic are pandering to these guys? It's like a steak restaurant aiming their menu at vegans.

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.

Do you play with established teammates that youhave planned with and communicate with on voice during match?

Look, I know it's a controversial topic. I am not a game developer, so I don't know how to fix it. These are my observations. I'm not really asking for an outright buff for Allies. I don't think that getting a Pershing, or making some units stronger, faster, etc...is necessarily the way to go. I also understand the idea behind faction design. I'm just saying that in large team games, playing the Allies is definitely much more unforgiving of ANY mistake, and requires really tight team play. Yes, I have played with a team using voice comms. It does help, of course, but the fact still stands: we are not allowed to make mistakes. Furthermore, as has been stated, sometimes it really is a map issue as well. Having also played Axis in large team games, I know that I can lose units, push deep into enemy lines, without sweating it too much. I can stage a comeback from 163 points to their 485, again without too much trouble.

Anyway, this is a good discussion , with good points being made by lots of people. I will say, that when we win as Allies after a long battle, it definitely feels like way more of an actual victory than when I've played as Axis and never really had any doubt about the outcome.

2 v 2 is fucked too. I watched one of Romeo's 2 v 2 replays last night with good players on mixed teams - like you say Axis steamroller everything as long as they can hold on long enough. Stale meta - Tiger... Tiger... bigger Tiger...

And I'm a predominantly Axis player.

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+?

Beltfed:
Thats not helpful, and you are basivally acting yourself like the small group of 1v1ers you are disparaging..
I want to point out that its been a huge problem in balance discussion overall that people dont specify thr game mode they are talking about. A large part of antipathy on issues is due to that misunderstanding, not due to 1v1 antipathy towards 2v2+. Its just that the issues the two different groups have dont coincide, and its a frustrstion for both when discussing thr same units/abilities/factions from a completely different frame of reference, because its not the same thing at all.

I know its frustrsting that CoH2 isnt built for 2v2+, but you kind of have to accept it, though discussion is free ofc.
2v2+is primarily hinged on teamwork/communication/planning/cooperation.
Ironically, balance is less important there, than in 1v1. In 1v1, you cant leverage imbalace through a teammate.
In 2v2+, the purpose is to work together with teammates to unilaterally exploit balance better than your opponents.
Thats really what it boils down to.

Hey!....noooees....let's cool it, please?

Less of the vernacular -in fact, preferably, no vernacular.

I do think, as Milka, then Cannonade have said,Relic have to prioritise for E-sports. But after that, they should have the courage to see that they have reinvented 3v3 and 4v4, and should address the disparities. e.g. they could let loose again full-blown Tiger Ace and Windustry on 3v3/4v4 alone.

Some will claim this may split the community - to which I would argue that vCoH and Coh2 is already a split - and 1v1/2v2 as against 3v3 and 4v4 on CoH2 is a schism which will not go away, by ignoring the problem.

Poor Relic are the victims of their own success (IMO): they have evidently created a vibrant 3v3/4v4 community, which is better skilled than the vCoH equivalent, through fast matchmaking, which entices players in. There are players in 3v3 and 4v4 who specialise- I watched this develop in CoHO. - now Relic need to recognise and address the imbalance between single/2 player mode,as against 3v3/4v4,which undoubtedly exists.