Login

russian armor

[Feedback requested] - balancing issues in large team games

PAGES (7)down
9 Apr 2015, 16:29 PM
#41
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

One other thing I forgot, cutoffs don't exist in most maps. Cutoffs represent a way for a skilled team to defeat a less versatile team with good work, but are not available. Only a few maps have fuel which is contested (e.g., Steppes). Steppes suffers from being so large though that at latter stages vp's take over in importance and teams frequently abandon more than half the map to engage in combat.

For example Lienne Forest has an uncapable fuel for both teams, and the forest is painfully seperated from the action. Move the fuel to mid, make it a contest to control, remove forest, add open area to flank, and provide less munitions, but allow these to be closer to bases. A team losing fuel can still get munitions to get back in the game, but will lose an advantage. However, the team will always be able to deny the opponent the fuel and drive the initiative back in their favor.

A top priority should be maps where all of the area is in equal use at all times of the game.
9 Apr 2015, 16:55 PM
#42
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

The Problem are not the factions it's the matchmaking, Axis have larger playerbase -> better match ups among team mates, while facing lower ranked allies.

If you play AT there's really no difference in winning.

Simply this.


9 Apr 2015, 17:44 PM
#43
avatar of DarthBong420

Posts: 381

4v4 allies have early game advantage just build FHQ and its I win button. If you have problems winning in 4v4 it is NOT the factions. IS2 is by far the best tank in the game. Allied late game is on par with axis now that kt is garbage. Allied early game completely destroys axis. Fix the early game easy mode allies, then, you can talk about late game. Even in 4v4 OST teching is a complete joke. You lose all your mp, meanwhile USF just floods Rifles...
9 Apr 2015, 18:00 PM
#44
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

official coh2 forum troll invading coh2.org!! although FHQ is bs.

i believe these small and humble patches are getting 3v3+ balance in the right direction. the biggest problems are maps and caches.

caches: for 200mp, it gives way too much and in some maps, it is impossible to punish caches becasue the territory point would be so close to enemies' base. cache's income increasing with teching is interesting, but once the first tank is out from your tech, it will be the same story again. unlimited is2,JT,KT,panther,34/85s flowing as fast as they die.

maps: no cutoff, many discourages maneuvering and encourage turtling. steppes, kubel heaven. wolf's lair, much bigger, minsk pocket 3v3 version, lazerenth ambush, imba for team on the left, city 17 same, sittard is sittard, vielsam is abomination, rezhev winter imba against north team, angermuende - no such "big area for epic tank battles"/ lane warfare, etc etc.
9 Apr 2015, 18:04 PM
#45
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2



Well you can see by the title that this is a request put in by Relic through their new moderator on the official forums


I need to snub this out before people get carried away about the 'paid shill' thing. It is flattering but Relic has not requested this of me. I am personally pursuing this topic as this is the game mode The Angry Bears plays the most and I'd like to see how we can make it better. I don't claim to have all the answers so I'd like to hear what the community has to say about the matter. If it just so happens that Relic and the developers glean some information off of this thread then all the better for everyone. I'm all about developer/community communication. I've added a disclaimer to my OP to make this clear.

9 Apr 2015, 19:50 PM
#46
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I would certainly say that OKW should not get benefit from caches because that undermines the core concept of the faction and further this change would have zero effect upon 1v1 balance.


This has been said multiple times; but OKW gets only 66% income from caches. There isn't an imbalance in them getting more fuel from them than there is USF getting more fuel from Soviet caches or Soviets from USF caches. If OKW got full income from them then yeah it would be an issue like with Luftwaffe supply.

If you want to mess around with resource income just do this:

-Limit amount of caches that can be built by each player to 1 fuel and 1 muni
-Luftwaffe supply call in's only give 66% fuel to OKW players and 80% munitions
-Caches don't stop decapping of points, if an enemy caps the point that has a cache they get the caches income
-Upper limit on fuel income, you cannot have more than 40 as Ost, USF or Soviet, and no more than 26 as OKW.
9 Apr 2015, 20:02 PM
#47
avatar of Jadame!

Posts: 1122

Better maps without uncontested fuel. Bigger maps with more flank routes and cutoffs. Nerf to OKW forward retreat (it gives enormous advantage in terms of map presence/speeds up vet gain too much), FRP should come with at least 5 minutes cd until okw player can upgrade it.

Overall better matchmaking, as it most crucial part of large game modes.
9 Apr 2015, 20:16 PM
#48
avatar of Glendizzle

Posts: 149

The biggest issue I have with big games is that there is no mid game. Light vehicles have almost no window of opportunity. Medium tanks have the same problem to a lesser degree. Slow down the resources and that should alleviate the problem. Perhaps cut resources from all points by a third.

Wehr feeding okw fuel is an issue. Via caches or drops is irrelevant. It takes the handicap of okw away leaving all of the strengths and none of the weakness. It's a problem when you have too little mp to spend fuel at the 10-12 minute mark. I wants to see more infantry and light vehicle play. 15 minute KT is absurd.

I do however like the way okw/wehr and usf/so synergise.

Matchmaking is troublesome at times. When I'm playing with the guys and we get four randoms and bade pin them it's no fun for either team. Same goes when I'm flying solo in automatch trying something new. Getting stomped by a good AT is a bitch. No notion of how to fix that aside from separate queues and that's a terrible idea.
9 Apr 2015, 20:59 PM
#49
avatar of Tones

Posts: 15

Edit: just realized this doesnt really belong in this thread...my bad.

Not sure if this was already mentioned. But SU-76 needs a bit of love and be made somewhat viable. It is almost never used because it simply doesn't seem to fit any role as it is quite garbage vs. Inf (except when you barrage, really not reliably available for use as it has cool down). And no one is going to invest the fuel for this unit just to 'bust some bunkers', it'll set you too far back from your su-85. Just my 2 cents.

Also for USF armor it feels a bit too finicky and very micro intensive vs the other faction armor. Ie. Switching back and forth for Sherman AI/AP rounds. "Nifty" skill set that doesn't add much value, just appears to make the unit cool. Why not just a generic shot like T34/76, PIV, like all the other med tanks.

9 Apr 2015, 21:11 PM
#50
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Maps maps maps, balance for fuel cut offs and VP contestant!
9 Apr 2015, 21:12 PM
#51
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521


If you want to mess around with resource income just do this:

-Limit amount of caches that can be built by each player to 1 fuel and 1 muni
-Luftwaffe supply call in's only give 66% fuel to OKW players and 80% munitions
-Caches don't stop decapping of points, if an enemy caps the point that has a cache they get the caches income
-Upper limit on fuel income, you cannot have more than 40 as Ost, USF or Soviet, and no more than 26 as OKW.


Why do something so convoluted? Just do the second, and then remove any and all income OKW gets from them. They have salvage for a reason. If you think Salvage and resource conversion are too underpowered to make up for that, buff them. OKW can't build caches for a reason and in team games that reason does not exist.
10 Apr 2015, 00:35 AM
#52
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1

Well, it seems that the community thinks the most important factor is the map design. When you think of it, their right, maps give a lot of resources. But I don't think we will see any changes in that regard (map overhauls, increase/decrease CPs etc). Maybe just reduce CP income significantly (like 50-60%), and make caches a little expensive (like 250).
10 Apr 2015, 00:58 AM
#53
avatar of ilGetUSomDay

Posts: 612

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2015, 00:35 AMRMMLz
Well, it seems that the community thinks the most important factor is the map design. When you think of it, their right, maps give a lot of resources. But I don't think we will see any changes in that regard (map overhauls, increase/decrease CPs etc). Maybe just reduce CP income significantly (like 50-60%), and make caches a little expensive (like 250).


even these would go a long way, the problem with large team games is really how quickly they spiral out of control. Early ahead allies incredibly increase their early game advantage due to how quick their other early/mid game amplifiers come out. The same way with axis, if the game gets stalled well enough their huge late game advantages become really easy to obtain and hard to knock down
10 Apr 2015, 01:53 AM
#55
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2015, 01:48 AMAladdin
You called me ignorant in your post, but now everyone can see who is ignorant indeed. Just stop flaming when posting bro! :megusta:

Literally the first thing you said after quoting the opening poster was a learn to play suggestion while claiming some sort of anti-Axis agenda from an opening post quoted that mentioned literally nothing about any faction.

I'd suggest you also stop flaming.
10 Apr 2015, 02:02 AM
#57
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



even these would go a long way, the problem with large team games is really how quickly they spiral out of control. Early ahead allies incredibly increase their early game advantage due to how quick their other early/mid game amplifiers come out. The same way with axis, if the game gets stalled well enough their huge late game advantages become really easy to obtain and hard to knock down


those advantages getting amplified is a big deal but would not be the biggest bad shit if maps allowed for teamwork and coordination to work to the fullest as in less pathing issues and imba asymmetrical maps etc etc.

caches being 250mp would not solve anything. whatever the cost of the caches, +3 fuel or +5 muni for minutes or an hour+ is invaluable. CP, i don't find problem with. CP progression in 2v2-4v4 are pretty similar. depends on map. in general mud, the huge size and extra two resource points means guards come later than late game tiers. in maps like rostov, clusterfuck in the town can quickly give you 2cp.

to me, nothing can solve 3v3+ indefinitely except fixing the maps (which goes for all gamemodes i think tbh). team games have one thing that 1v1 does not have: teamwork. let the players use that tool effectively.


10 Apr 2015, 03:10 AM
#60
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Thanks mods
PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

616 users are online: 616 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM