[Feedback requested] - balancing issues in large team games

This would be such an insanely huge nerf for Soviets lol. You never normally get more than 1 KT, Jadgtiger, or Elefant. You ALWAYS get more than 1 IS2/ISU.

How is this bad?

Now that you are acting as a bridge between Relic Entertainment and the community, you should try to address the balance issues experienced by all factions.

I'm pursuing this out of my own interest. Relic hasn't asked me to do so. I like large game modes for the social experience and fun. Instead of balancing factions I'd like to see if we can balance by game mode, the large ones!

I'm personally not a fan of introducing hard caps for units. It is a bit immersion breaking. I'm liking the idea of slowing down resource income as a primary method of balancing large team games. It appears the benefits would be a slower game, less spamming, blobbing (more tactical play), less armor, etc etc. I'm just unsure if it is possible though. Perhaps this is something I can find out.

Is it possible to have 3v3 and 4v4 run with a standard mod developed by Relic to help address balance issues without throwing 1v1 and 2v2 completely out of whack?

3v3 and 4v4 scale very differently. The idea of a mod is interesting, but I honestly don't know what the impact would be.

How is this bad?

if your goal is to balance team games, making Allies unable to counter the Elefant, Jadgtiger and KT isn't the solution.

Hard caps for units is a good idea if you apply it right, but Soviet reliance on being about to out number their opponent makes it hard to implement.

something along those lines, a lot of the 3v3 and 4v4 maps are just a really long rectangle. Narrow frontline, long supply lines.

this +200

maps like Lienne Forest, ppl have no problem helping their teammates but in maps like city 17 or lazerenth ambush, the layout of spawnpoints and the maps discourage swinging and teamwork. it devolves 4v4 into two 2v2s.

If the community is so dedicated to fix this, we can one of mod makers to create mod for Large games and our own little Beta test. I think Napalm can organize this... hmmm let's say balance movement. Something like kappatch, but only with the changes that we think will be implemented by Relic. Things like small buffs and nerfs which we typically see.

Our little community claims to be very well-educated and most people here feel like the have a super duper deep knowledge of the game mechanics. If only we were dedicated enough, to create our own Beta-Mod and with the help of Pro and average players test things we suggest. We can already see a some of our strategists test things in cheat mode and publish the results. Why not take it one step forward?

we (generous we) have. it's call kappa patch and no one plays it for the usual reasons. also, relic doesn't give a shit about it.

we (generous we) have. it's call kappa patch and no one plays it for the usual reasons. also, relic doesn't give a shit about it.

As I said, kappatch is great but there are a lot of drastic changes which Relic might not even consider. I'm talking a mod, which is the core game with the some suggested but limited changes

Here is an example, everyone is fighting over PTRS and Cons spam. There are a lot of suggestions which can be tested onw by one and a lot of arguments may settle.

But your point is valid, player contribution is the key.

As I said, kappatch is great but there are a lot of drastic changes which Relic might not even consider. I'm talking a mod, which is the core game with the some suggested but limited changes

Here is an example, everyone is fighting over PTRS and Cons spam. There are a lot of suggestions which can be tested onw by one and a lot of arguments may settle.

But your point is valid, player contribution is the key.

define a "drastic" change. is removing sprint from snipers a drastic change? is swapping the su-76 and t-70 a drastic change? is roughly doubling the katy's effectiveness a drastic change? relic makes all kind of stupid and unwanted changes and many of them are drastic. the problem is that they always fuck something up, usually badly.

basically, i don't trust relic, i think drastic changes are needed for the general health of the game, and i don't have a problem with them as long as they're good. idk if you've played elite mod for dow2 but it made HUGE changes to ret while the game still plays the same and feels the same. it's a lot of fun.

as for testing changes, that's pretty easy. ptrs cons for example. make a scenario map for a beta where one player is always soviets with the tank hunter doctrine. i'm sure they could get people to play it if they offered a decal or achievement or something and stuck it in the game as a challenge. it would matter a whole lot if it was balanced or not as it wouldn't affect rank and it should generate a lot of data if it was handled right. it would require significant work on relic's part (choosing a map and setting everything up) but i think the pay off would be well worth it. part of the problem with mods to test stuff is they don't get much traction.

Show Spoiler

I don't wanna derail and go off-topic, so I'll try to wrap this up.
Show Spoiler
Let's go back to topic.

stuff

i agree and i'll let the thread return to topic.

Please make something with the T34 spam + soviet industry, 5 T34 of 4 soviets at the 14 min is just GG, no replay saved sorry.

Why cant your team have 8 Pak 40's, 12 Teller Mines, 4 PGrens with shreks and 4 Panzer 4's waiting for them?

Just wanted to thank everybody for participating. It seems like there are is one 'root' issue that are breaking the balance of larger team games. Resources which are influenced by two things. Maps; uncontested points, more resource points then in smaller maps. Caches; OKW receiving benefits from caches (although at a reduced rate).

The current state of Large Team Games is simply put, 'broken'. Granted maybe 1 v 1, the game is balanced or better balanced. But the current state appears to be more about what units you build more so then how you actually use/micro those units. I can't tell you how many conuntless Team Games I've played where this is the case. Maybe my mistake at the end of the day is that I'm playing with randoms and not with a set team. But I'm just glad GTA V finally came out for PC so I can just drop this game and wait for COH3.

Off map artillery needs to be blocked from base sectors.


Without fail, every map I'll see a German player mix scout runs with something like a Stuka call in to hamstring allied players. Wanted to build on-map artillery? Slow vehicles and weapon crews? Tough shit, Nazis get a hard counter. And don't even think of retreating units.



Actually, scouting runs mixed with spotting scopes on scout cars is generally just cheesy. Suddenly it's almost impossible to not know when you're opponent's in the area.


For that matter, there should really be some sort of consequence for having your aircraft shot down, and having them crashing into things shouldn't be a potential reward. Especially if I have no say over whether my own units start opening fire on them.



Its mind boggling that the only good artillery the US gets isn't even artillery- it's a strafing run. Maybe it's the same sort of "We wanted to make an authentic game so we did all our research from the History Channel" bullshit that has the Germans getting every toy in the cabinet, but the US and the Soviets get bread scraps, but this is a serious issue- artillery was the hallmark of the US armed forces from Normandy to VE day and for it to be so poorly represented in the game is irritating.


Helps nothing that without the E8's, your tank fleet is generally garbage. Take a Soviet player with no IS-2 or ISU-152 and you get a US player. Sure, there's smoke barrages, but that's just hamming US tanks in response to hammed German tanks.


The Soviets need to be de-hamed, but that's just an old, broken record about failed design choices. SU76's and T-70's legitimately could be removed from multiplayer with minimal notice, Katyusha's are laughably easy to kill for what they cost, and Penal Battalions are redundant, if mildly insulting.



There honestly isn't much I'd do with the Osthere. They're not good but they're not exactly bad, and most of it comes from the fact that their tech tree is the equivalent of dry toast. It's boring.


OKW....I don't know where to start. If it's not the wildly inconsistent flak halftrack or Sturmpioneers who can't make up their mind between being an assault unit and a support unit, so they're really just an expensive support unit, its balance rending hyper-accurate stuka halftracks and Pumas. These guys have design flaws up the ass, but unlike the Soviets and the Ostheer, their issue's that everything is expensive and potentially useless.

RESOURCES

I think it is wrong to blame the resources and caches for messing up 4v4 balance. Some of you are acting like if we tone down resources or remove caches, the game will be magically balanced. Let's say we delay the KT or IS2 by a couple minutes, what happens when they do enter the battlefield? It will just be the same result as it is now. People will complain that they are getting defeated without the chance to bring out their late-game stuff. Remember when OKW came out? People complained that they had too weak of an early-game that they could never get to their supposed amazing late-game.

I agree with Jadames' posts

I believe that one thing is wrong with the resource system: 1. manipulation of resources (mainly applies to Luffwaffe Supply and OKW). Like others have said, it is ridiculous that you are using an ability to boost a faction's fuel income, but they OKW are supposed to be HANDICAPPED.

Soviet Industry also messes with resources, but it has an extreme drawback (you will be very short on MP late game).

MAPS

Okay it already has been said earlier but i will mention it again. Some of the maps are not very good. Some of them are imbalanced (Rostov....) and some of them are designed poorly. Most maps are very "long" meaning retreat distances are very lengthy. Factions with forward retreat bases are at a massive advantage (OKW mainly).

Maps don't really allow for flanking, or maneuver. Most of it involves players clashing over a srongpoint. Players throw their units along a small area. This usually turns into a grind fest for important points. It would be nice if the maps had more contested regions like someone said earlier.

BALANCE

Okay i hate turning this into a "nerf Axis" thread but it is generally acknowledged that they have an advantage in 4v4.

1. Kubel
This unit is extremely strong. I think it is way too good in 4v4. In 1v1, the maps are smaller, so if you have to retreat, you won't be losing much time. However, 4v4 maps are much bigger meaning that a Kube pinning your guys generally means instant loss of a point.

The Kubel is very fast unit that can GET TO YOUR FUEL OR CUTOFF BEFORE YOU DO. It also acts like a machine gun, so it is xtremely easy for an OKW player to get an advantage in the early fightts.

2. Luffwaffe Supply
Map control isn't very important in 4v4 because the maps are not 1v1 maps X 4 size. This means you don't need as many units as a 1v1 to get some decent map control.

This doctrine exploits that characteristic because you can spend a lot of your MP to drop fuel. Some maps are a fuel point close to base, making this doctrine uncounterable. OKW gain an enormous benefit from this doctrine.

3. Close Air Support
Destroys all on-map artillery. Pressures the opponent into microing better (okay this is not a big deal but considering the ineffectiveness of AA, i think this doctrine is unfair). This doctrine is also hard to counter. Shooting down the recon plane helps but the AT strafe and regular strafe are nearly impossible to stop before the attacks happen.

4. Axis Heavy Tanks/ Lack of Heavy AT for Allies
Axis factions have a ton of heavily armed and armored tanks like the King Tiger, Elefant and Jagdtiger. They can also equip the Panzerschreck, which is extremely deadly to most Allied tanks.

Now i am fine with Axis having those heavy tanks. It is alright that Axis tanks usually win frontal engagements. The next alternative is flanking. HOWEVER, it is much easier to control one heavy tank than multiple, weaker, tanks like the Sherman, Jackson, or T34. As soon as you lose one of these vehicles, your force is automatically weaker. Don't forget that the Axis have better AT options and Allied tanks are weaker.

It would be nice if Allies had more RELIABLE ways to fight Axis heavy tanks rather than relying on offmaps to hopefully land on the opponent's tank.

the maps just don't work. Every map has 14 resource sectors and 3 Vps, when you add more players the responsibility for map control reduces and it also causes resource income rates to peak out faster.

Maps for the larger modes need more resource sectors and less resource per point to compensate so that the total resource count available is the same but it is distributed even further.

The maps are also very big which results in full retreats being very detrimental because it takes a really long time to get back to the action zones.

The maps are also very narrow which limits flanking opportunities.

tl;dr maps are a bigger problem then most players realise.

This.

There are lots of good points in this thread, but I think a core re-design of the 3v3 / 4v4 maps as Ipkai suggests would make a massive, positive, difference. Resources = flow of game. Re-balancing the resource sectors, and even VPs (why not maps with, say, two or four?) might well achieve this.

I don't find that even number VP points work well, with an odd number you create an extra point of contention. The old beaux lowlands had four vps and it resulted in some really long matches because having two vps each, both of them close to each other froze the ticket tick down and it was very difficult to assault one of the pair of VPs on the different sides of the map. One, Three, Five or Seven VPs work. Two, Four and Six can be very awkward.

I think that they should change the amount of high resource points an odd number on all maps but that's probably a topic for another thread.

RESOURCES

I think it is wrong to blame the resources and caches for messing up 4v4 balance. Some of you are acting like if we tone down resources or remove caches, the game will be magically balanced. Let's say we delay the KT or IS2 by a couple minutes, what happens when they do enter the battlefield? It will just be the same result as it is now. People will complain that they are getting defeated without the chance to bring out their late-game stuff. Remember when OKW came out? People complained that they had too weak of an early-game that they could never get to their supposed amazing late-game.

...

it is not about when the first tank comes out. i agree with jadame that cache does add some depth in quickening the pace in exchange for a price of part of a unit. but it still does not change the fact that it is offensively cheap even from 2v2+ and helps teams shit fuel out of their ass. what happens when you see a jagdtiger/KT/ISU/IS2 wielded by a good team. you make a move on it. but by the time you are able to make a move on it, which takes time, the user would have enough saved to just call in another one most of the time. i personally do not like that.

WHY katyusha comes out so early and counter infantry blobs so well but ostheer have no artillery to use to counter the allies infantry blobs? Werfer is so expensive and so usless.