New to 4 VS 4 ? Read this first !

CoHO was never going to be balanced, but as Swiss said, it didn't really need to be. The variables were so diverse you could make all sorts of crazy strategies, and allies had all sorts of mad OP units too (assault jeep anyone?).

I loved CoHO, I was ranked higher there (Top 100 in team games) than I ever was in vCoH and CoH2 and never got bored.

I know the purists hated it, but if you took it on face value it was sheer fun.

CoHO was never going to be balanced, but as Swiss said, it didn't really need to be. The variables were so diverse you could make all sorts of crazy strategies, and allies had all sorts of mad OP units too (assault jeep anyone?).

I loved CoHO, I was ranked higher there (Top 100 in team games) than I ever was in vCoH and CoH2 and never got bored.

I know the purists hated it, but if you took it on face value it was sheer fun.

I could not agree more. Think about that: he is right, there were OP allied units !!! Not just axis ones ! ...it just sound like science-fiction today.

The COHO 4vs4 was fun and was always full of players. Why then COH2 could not be also fun and as much full ? There is a big market for 4vs4, we just need it more balanced.

Why COHO was losing money ? Because they didn't have a working economic model yet ready, THQ was already sinking a lot at that timea and because COHO was so hugely popular, it had costly server requirements. They did not have the money to finish it or have the time to wait for the money to came in.

So you see, the people are there, the market are there, Relics have just to make COH2 tastes right for them... and bingo !

So there is no point arguing about 4vs4 or 1vs1... there is people for both, and a lot of them.

I got faith that the situation will resolve for the better, because someone there who know that there is money to be made...

If nothing is done, then Duffy will be replaced and the project will continue. Life in business is like that, it's why I've got faith. But i would rather see the changes needed a bit sooner then that...

See you on the 4vs4 battlefield !

The COHO 4vs4 was fun and was always full of players. Why then COH2 could not be also fun and as much full ? There is a big market for 4vs4, we just need it more balanced.

Why COHO was losing money ? Because they didn't have a working economic model yet ready, THQ was already sinking a lot at that timea and because COHO was so hugely popular, it had costly server requirements. They did not have the money to finish it or have the time to wait for the money to came in.

So you see, the people are there, the market are there, Relics have just to make COH2 tastes right for them... and bingo !

So there is no point arguing about 4vs4 or 1vs1... there is people for both, and a lot of them.

I got faith that the situation will resolve for the better, because someone there who know that there is money to be made...

If nothing is done, then Duffy will be replaced and the project will continue. Life in business is like that, it's why I've got faith. But i would rather see the changes needed a bit sooner then that...

See you on the 4vs4 battlefield !

CohO AT was a ghost town. 4v4 custom games were full of people trying to find the perfect matchup where they knew they would win a game. Personally, I like the new system 1000x more.

CohO AT was a ghost town. 4v4 custom games were full of people trying to find the perfect matchup where they knew they would win a game. Personally, I like the new system 1000x more.

Soon history might repeat itself. Less and less people trying to compete in automatch means more people will get drawn to "public games" section.

It's a fallacy that fixing 4v4 will have adverse effects on 1v1.

The huge lategame disadvantage of the US and the game breaking effects of heavy tanks are still present in 1v1, just to a lesser degree.

Balancing heavy tanks to be more in line with medium tanks stat and cost-wise would help out both 1v1 and 4v4.

It's flat out wrong that axis require game breaking tanks for 1v1 late game, because there is no early game disadvantage anymore (and there shouldn't be).

On the face of it, is fixing 4v4 that hard? If 1x1 is supposed to be perfectly balanced, why not just apply a % reduction to resource income in the bigger game modes. Ie 2x2 10%, 3x3 20%, 4x4 30% or similar. Of course that will not fix every issue, but at least it makes the game more like 1x1 in timing. Anyways the early/middle game is more interesting than heavy tank spam so why not spend more time getting there?

On the face of it, is fixing 4v4 that hard? If 1x1 is supposed to be perfectly balanced, why not just apply a % reduction to resource income in the bigger game modes. Ie 2x2 10%, 3x3 20%, 4x4 30% or similar. Of course that will not fix every issue, but at least it makes the game more like 1x1 in timing. Anyways the early/middle game is more interesting than heavy tank spam so why not spend more time getting there?

I've been saying something like this for the last eighteen months, it makes perfect sense.

I've been saying something like this for the last eighteen months, it makes perfect sense.

Nice touch, BeltFed W

And to SwissCheese: sorry ! I forgot Steelpact There is no reason why,with adjustments, this could not also be reintroduced

It's a fallacy that fixing 4v4 will have adverse effects on 1v1.

The huge lategame disadvantage of the US and the game breaking effects of heavy tanks are still present in 1v1, just to a lesser degree.

Balancing heavy tanks to be more in line with medium tanks stat and cost-wise would help out both 1v1 and 4v4.

It's flat out wrong that axis require game breaking tanks for 1v1 late game, because there is no early game disadvantage anymore (and there shouldn't be).

WOw i totally agree. Watching 1v1 and 2v2 streams already show this issue. It is just exponentially worse in 4v4 lol

I've been saying something like this for the last eighteen months, it makes perfect sense.

Because that's one of the reasons some people play 4v4. So they can spam their big toys and see a slugfest.
On the other hand, reducing resources may lead to problems on arriving counters and making call in tanks an even more obvious choice.

With this i'm not saying that reducing resources can't be a solution, but it needs to be paired with more things to make it viable.

My team AND myself were highly ranked too ( top 20 on allied side 4vs4. Almost never played axis ). COHO A BALANCED GAME ? No Way ! But WITH the dynamic doctrines, the custom units, commander customization feature, AND versatility for all factions ... almost everything was possible. Not in COH2. Versatility you find mainly on axis side, while you get vanilla AND limited basic units on allied teams, so you have to take great care in choosing amongst many useless commanders, the one that can compensate for the lack of real good starting unit. On the axis side, commanders are just icing on the cake.

Wow, I have started this tread so that new players in team automatch would not get overwhelmed and keeps coming back. Now we're also on a memory lane trip ... COHO. So many good memories ... And frustrating ones too. Gee, I wanted to spend more real cash to support Relic, but the economic model was broken ... There was not anything to buy ! Not even crazy skins, map pack or new commanders slots ... One regret (the main one is that the game is gone), i never really had the time to play on the axis side. In automatch, there were also more axis players, so longer waiting time to find a match ... But not as long as today on COH2.

Anyway, I was on the move, replying from airports yesterday. I wrote something that is not true at all, allies do have good starting units in COH2. It's the lack of late game good ones that are commander related (except (Early game) maybe for the mechanized little mg, but it got pushed back to render it useles ....).

Personally I am not to fond of big tanks (slow, two much manpower, etc.), Pershing should be available for diversity. But I would also (and prefer) the comeback of the Rangers ! Charge !

Wow, I have started this tread so that new players in team automatch would not get overwhelmed and keeps coming back. Now we're also on a memory lane trip ...

Hmmm my 'memory trip lane' of you, is not of you being helpful. I remember you losing it because things weren't going so well, and you proceeding to wire me into my base and mortaring my troops (whilst throwing insults at me), because I lost a squad of rifles to kubel/truck push and sturm pio's.


Have you turned over a new leaf?

oh I've run into some people like that, is that who the "nice guy" is? I haven't been wired into my base in coh2 yet.

Hmmm my 'memory trip lane' of you, is not of you being helpful. I remember you losing it because things weren't going so well, and you proceeding to wire me into my base and mortaring my troops (whilst throwing insults at me), because I lost a squad of rifles to kubel/truck push and sturm pio's.

Have you turned over a new leaf?

The types of comportements you describe here are TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ! And I would be enraged if I saw somebody do it to me. The game is so challenging that you definitely don't need things like that ! I don't remember you, so I will take this as an error on the person. I can surrender if the allies don't gain and hold their grounds ... But's that's about it. I can also enjoy defeat, if the fighting was good on both sides. Sometimes I even gratify my team with a moral victory despite the fact that we loosed.

oh I've run into some people like that, is that who the "nice guy" is? I haven't been wired into my base in coh2 yet.

Me neither, but it had happened to me a couple of times on the Steelpack map in COHO. At least it was from the axis players. Then to the nice guy part, WJ said nice, not a saint ! So I have not done this heresie, but it happens sometimes in the heat of the action that I can say things like 'don't camp', move forward, don't stop or 'Are you done or feeling better' after 36 clicks on the map. But then again, who does not from time to time. Specially after a few games being automatch with teammates that can be good but dont know the terrain enough or lack quick adjustments necessary for good team play.

Playing axis you can have a player or a CPU scoring 3200 points and you 28000 and still win. The same type of scenario is most of the time certain death if it happens on the allied side.

Hope to see you on the battlefield.

Maybe I have it wrong. Where are you based out of? Maybe post your player card/steam page so I can see?

If I have it wrong, I'd like to apologise.

oh I've run into some people like that, is that who the "nice guy" is? I haven't been wired into my base in coh2 yet.

i have played with swiss before and he hasn't done anything bad (at least not when i was with him). But we all lose our cool sometimes

Post invissed before this turns into yet another hopeless, worthless flame fest that leads to nowhere.

Keep it decent gents.

Most of the pros play 1v1, although I do believe that if the game was perfectly balanced there, 4v4s would be in a much better shape

This. 1v1 is currently pretty imbalanced, it just shows more in 4v4.

It's apparently already incredibly hard to balance 4 factions just for 1v1. Making them balanced in all 4 modes would be exponentially harder.

4v4 and 1v1 will never both be perfectly balanced because when several players work together there will be certain strong unit and ability combinations that cannot be replicated in 1v1. One example is the cloak ketten with sniper in vcoh. Another is multiple KTs in CoH2. Its extremely difficult to nerf a combination of units without making them really underperform in 1v1. But if you try to balance one unit against another that can be done without screwing the team games. USF is weak in 1v1 therefore they are very weak in team games. Make them balanced in 1v1 and they will also become more balanced in team games.

tl;dr 4v4 will never be perfect in CoH2 but it is possible to make balance changes that will improve both 1v1 4v4 and everything in between.