The overbearing balance of 4's

I only suggest this because I doubt Relic will create separate balance profiles for team games. If they stick to their 1v1 trickle up balance then team game will have to be forced to play like 1v1. Maps are the only direct impact the community can have on balance. Perhaps a community made map forcing players into a 1v1 style may produce better win/loss ratios.



I agree with you that resource flow is major contributing factor to state of the team games. In team games I have encountered stukkas at 7 mins and KTs at 20 mins. Ideally it should be looked at but if I remember resources are tied to the maps. Fuel upkeep would a solution in part if done correctly but that is tired to the units stats and would require Relic to introduce into 1v1 balance without a separate profile.

I think it's not because there are more, it's because you gain control of your side of the map quicker, and because you can afford to save up fuel more, because of your fortified position. In 1v1, you probably wouldn't necessarily rush a stuka at 7 min because you'd need a puma or a luchs for support at some point.

I think it's not because there are more, it's because you gain control of your side of the map quicker, and because you can afford to save up fuel more, because of your fortified position. In 1v1, you probably wouldn't necessarily rush a stuka at 7 min because you'd need a puma or a luchs for support at some point.

The problem is a stukka so early in team games it invalidates Allied support weapons reducing the ability of Allies to fortified position as current team game meta requires. The problem is the whole idea in team games of controlling the key points. The Axis are just better at it, better fortification abilities and tools for breaking fortified positions. Either concept of fortification needs focused balancing or needs to be reduced out the team game meta.

The ALlies are supposed to have the advantage in numbers, especially tanks such as Sherman and T34. However, the state of the game and 4v4 basically nullifies this theoretical advantage.

WTF are you all ranting about ?!? Is it possible that half of this forum is literally delusional ?

I'm not that much of a terrible player, (I played vCoH and CoH2 since it's release) yet my W/L ratio in 4vs4 is always bit below 50%. Allies actually DO HAVE blatant advantage in numbers ! I've lost many games against obviously better skilled, better coordinated teams, but also the average teams, since Axis fan club is obviously far more populated with sorta 'noobs', than the Allied side. Which is statistically logical 90% of players searching as Axis give you far more unpredictability than 10%. I've seen plenty of situations where even holding the both fuel for half an hour didn't help, when blob of T34/85, or E8 drove through the map, and destroyed everything of that "superior" german origin.. How did they manage to build 10 tanks, while OH and OKW are still scratching with Pumas and light vehicles, saving for one miserable Panther !??
Balance while obviously never perfect - is actually quite ok, the problem on the other hand is that, for it's cool factor, 90% of ordinary folk prefers Axis, and in order to get the game goin' more mature, experienced, all round players pick allies, and they Win. Maybe it's whole different world in the top 50 players realm, but if you start nerfing Axis on account of that "fictional" top shelf balance, soon you're gonna start losing the vast majority of average, casual players that actually make the most of the paying customers.

WTF are you all ranting about ?!? Is it possible that half of this forum is literally delusional ?

I'm not that much of a terrible player, (I played vCoH and CoH2 since it's release) yet my W/L ratio in 4vs4 is always bit below 50%. Allies actually DO HAVE blatant advantage in numbers !

Not really, unless ostheer is keen on ignoring every single armor that doesn't have a "tiger" in its name.
And its not like multiple Pumas can't take on multiple T34s/shermans effectively coming on top.

So no, the numerical advantage is an utter myth in all game modes where axis players aren't being blinded by heavy armor.

Everyone should care about 3v3 and 4v4 balance especially 1v1 players. Those are the mulitplayer games that will bring new players into the pool.

all the comp stompers and new purchases are not going to wade into 1v1 for the first time. They will play 3v3 and 4v4 for FUN and learn to love playing vs people. If they have no FUN which is currently how 3v3 and 4v4 is for allies players they will just drop out of the pool.

remember new players don't know dps or other balance points. They just know that the game is not fun and therefore sucks (which it doesnt')

If you really want the multiplayer to grow, play some 3v3 and 4v4 ask if anyone is new and if you play allies - let them know its not them it's relic (atm)

1v1 snobs who bash the gateway gamemodes are killing their own player pool.

This balance is pretty important to the future of mulitplayer coh

WTF are you all ranting about ?!? Is it possible that half of this forum is literally delusional ?

I'm not that much of a terrible player, (I played vCoH and CoH2 since it's release) yet my W/L ratio in 4vs4 is always bit below 50%. Allies actually DO HAVE blatant advantage in numbers ! I've lost many games against obviously better skilled, better coordinated teams, but also the average teams, since Axis fan club is obviously far more populated with sorta 'noobs', than the Allied side. Which is statistically logical 90% of players searching as Axis give you far more unpredictability than 10%. I've seen plenty of situations where even holding the both fuel for half an hour didn't help, when blob of T34/85, or E8 drove through the map, and destroyed everything of that "superior" german origin.. How did they manage to build 10 tanks, while OH and OKW are still scratching with Pumas and light vehicles, saving for one miserable Panther !??
Balance while obviously never perfect - is actually quite ok, the problem on the other hand is that, for it's cool factor, 90% of ordinary folk prefers Axis, and in order to get the game goin' more mature, experienced, all round players pick allies, and they Win. Maybe it's whole different world in the top 50 players realm, but if you start nerfing Axis on account of that "fictional" top shelf balance, soon you're gonna start losing the vast majority of average, casual players that actually make the most of the paying customers.

Snuffy, I will take some time to respond even though thomasthetank has made some excellent points on the subject (especially about Allied disadvantages).

It seems like you are describing your 4v4 experience form an Axis perspective, so will tell you what I have observed playing Ostheer and USSR (but have much more games as Soviets). I am not sure if you are exaggerating but holding both the fuel for half an hour would give you an enormous advantage. You should be ahead in tech and have vehicles out at the same time or even earlier than the Allies if you hold the fuel for that long.

Now I am not sure if you seen the data gathered by the player "Legends", but Axis have a huge winrate in 4v4s and 3v3s. This is for the top 200 players btw. It is widely agreed upon, even by Axis diehards, that Axis dominate in larger team games. I will not comment on your skill level but let me say this: Axis have superior AI and AT. The longer the game goes on, the more chances they will have to bring their heavy tanks out and Elite units.

Allied numerical superiority generally applies from 0-8 minutes. After that, it is fairly equal. Now this is the part where thomasthetank explains very well. 4v4 maps have objectives that are very close together. 1v1 and 2v2 maps are wide and big enough where flanking and capping play an important role. Those smaller modes have more fluid and dynamic gameplay where flanking by factions is important to victory. However, the crucial objectives in 4v4s are very close. Fuel points are often very close to VPS. TO make matters worse, these strategic locations are often accessed by chokepoints or surrounded by a crucial house. This cluster of important objectives forces all the players to cluster their forces into this specific area on the map. Think about the city in Lienne Forest, the city portion at Rostov, both edges of City 17, etc.

Again, like thomasthetanksaid, the battle phases of 4v4s leads to this: 1. Attack strategic objectives 2. Fortification of strategic objectives 3. one side will try to break the "turtle" 4. one or both sides will build a critical mass 5. One side will break and then gg

Axis have great advantages fortifying areas. They can build medic bunkers, mg bunkers, pak43 emplacements, get OKW trucks that provide a variety of bonuses, and so on. Combined with powerful infantry and AT guns, they can stave off most Allied attacks.

But they have other advantages as well. Good scaling infantry such as LMG Grens, Volks, and Obersoldaten can push back the Allies if the Allies have taken a position. The stuka is also ridiculously powerful in 4v4 ( I would say even OP in that game mode). You can get it out at around the 7-10 minute mark. This devastates Allied static positions Pumas at 7 minutes can also create chaos for the Allies.

This is the part where players often say Axis are absolutely broken: the late game phase. Now what i have mentioned above two paragraphs can be nullified with good tactical play, but the late game phase is absolutely brutal for the Allies. Panthers, KTs, Tigers, and Jagdtigers make it a living hell for the Allies, who have no heavy AT (Tigers and Panthers can be dealt with to an extent). I would say late game Ostheer can be handled with the current Allied roster, but the OKW cannot be touched. nondoc KT and the Jgdtiger completely wreck the Allies. Obersoldaten also make it a living hell for any Allied infantry

Now you're probably thinking, "L2P noob! L2Flank!". Well it's not that simple when most of the important objectives are so clustered around each other. As an Allied player, you are generally forced into a chokepoint ( at least for a little bit) to fight these Axis units. Never mind that the Axis have better AI and AT waiting for you.....

TLDR: Axis have better units. Allied advantages are nullified due to the design of the maps. Maps have important objectives closely bunched together forcing players into smaller areas where flanking and strategic play is not important, rather it is brute force that play a decisive role generally.



Or everyone can simply read thomasthetank's posts

babble

I suggest u get better.

5 pages in....time to move on