[Feedback requested] - balancing issues in large team games

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).

Looks like the community thinks resource distribution is the biggest issue in large team games. Maybe points and caches could give out less resources to slow the game down?

Looks like the community thinks resource distribution is the biggest issue in large team games. Maybe points and caches could give out less resources to slow the game down?

If you limit the amount of caches each player could make then you could avoid the instances of having 1 player just spamming them while everyone else picks up the slack.

Like I said before, just cap out the incomes so you can't go past certain amounts to accelerate the game anymore to make the playing field more fair and encourage comebacks. Caches are good for allowing players to negate the loss of not having a fuel point, but stack to much when you have 1 fuel point.

1 muni + 1 fuel cache per player would mean you could only have a max of 4 fuel caches if you had all Ost players which you will almost never find in 4's.

If you limit the amount of caches each player could make then you could avoid the instances of having 1 player just spamming them while everyone else picks up the slack.

Like I said before, just cap out the incomes so you can't go past certain amounts to accelerate the game anymore to make the playing field more fair and encourage comebacks. Caches are good for allowing players to negate the loss of not having a fuel point, but stack to much when you have 1 fuel point.

1 muni + 1 fuel cache per player would mean you could only have a max of 4 fuel caches if you had all Ost players which you will almost never find in 4's.

What if instead of limiting the resource cap as you say and thus limiting gameplay, making cashes both more expensive, and nerf their income. This way, player should decide if they want to sacrifice significant amount of MP for a little bit fuel income, or they want to call in more units. Something like 250 for a cache which generates 30% less resources than normal.

--
IpKaiFung pointed out a very important issue, maps are very big and you can't afford to fall back. That's why I usually play OKW or USF, for the sake of forward retreat point.
Is it possible to assign some a certain capture point as a retreat point for the team which is holding it? Something like Medic or Repair points in ToW. Not very close to frontline, but also not deep inside the base. Might be problematic to balance though.

What if instead of limiting the resource cap as you say and thus limiting gameplay, making cashes both more expensive, and nerf their income. This way, player should decide if they want to sacrifice significant amount of MP for a little bit fuel income, or they want to call in more units. Something like 250 for a cache which generates 30% less resources than normal.

--
IpKaiFung pointed out a very important issue, maps are very big and you can't afford to fall back. That's why I usually play OKW or USF, for the sake of forward retreat point.
Is it possible to assign some a certain capture point as a retreat point for the team which is holding it? Something like Medic or Repair points in ToW. Not very close to frontline, but also not deep inside the base. Might be problematic to balance though.

I don't know why they got rid of it but points that allow you to bring in infantry/tanks closer to the front once you capture them was a really cool idea. Just allow Ost and Soviets to utilize points like that so while they don't have forward retreat points they can call in units closer to the front than OKW and USF can.

Making caches more expensive and less effective won't stop them from being spammed, just putting a limit on the amount per player would encourage teams to coordinate more than just having a designated spammer. Not to mention it would hurt Allies more than Axis if you just increased the MP amount and reduced the income.

Think about it; if you have the normal set up of 2 OKW and 2 Ost in a 4's game you can only then get 2 fuel caches if you capped them, making them more expensive but give only 30% less than normal would give the OKW player more fuel not less.

Looks like the community thinks resource distribution is the biggest issue in large team games. Maybe points and caches could give out less resources to slow the game down?

I do not understand why people think cashes gamebreaking in 4v4. Best way to extend gain advantage in early game is to build cashes, then rush tanks, then bring heavy tanks. On Allied side I do not want to fight okw blobs without fast katys or t70. I do not want to choose between fast katy or t70 and heavy tanks if i have dominant map control and dictate flow of whole game. Limiting resources only result in call-in meta which is already problematic. And cashes far better for allies than for axis, at least in decent at battles.

Maps is problem, not the cashes. Save fuel points near bases, which allows 15m rushed panthers with 1/3 of the map in control, poorly made cutoffs, overall meat-grindish and too static style of 4v4 maps. Steppes is best example of well made map in terms of resource distribution (it still too open and too good for kubels). Fuel is contested, ammo is contested and easy to cut-off, map is huge and allows all sort of flanks.

If you want to slow down game and still keep it strategically rich, reduce mp income instead, lol. Squad wipes would be more devastating, and fast teching as well as waiting for call-ins more punishable.

I do not understand why people think cashes gamebreaking in 4v4. Best way to extend gain advantage in early game is to build cashes, then rush tanks, then bring heavy tanks. I do not want to fight okw blobs without fast katys or t70. I do not want to choose between fast katy or t70 and heavy tanks if i have dominant map control and dictate flow of whole game. Limiting resources only result in call-in meta which is already problematic. And cashes far better for allies than for axis, at least in decent at battles.

Maps is problem, not the cashes. Save fuel points near bases, which allows 15m rushed panthers with 1/3 of the map in control, poorly made cutoffs, overall meat-grindish and too static style of 4v4 maps. Steppes is best example of well made map in terms of resource distribution (it still too open and too good for kubels). Fuel is contested, ammo is contested and easy to cut-off, map is huge and allows all sort of flanks.

well one of the reasons (the main one in my opinion) that they are "game breaking" is that they expedite game advantages in a poor way. Due to having multiple players, it is easy to have someone build a cache or so early on.

In the allies side, if they gain an upperhand and have caches up all of the sudden there are huge early game or mid game vehicles out way sooner then they should be. This becomes a tremendous strain on getting back into the game as an axis team so there are many really short 4v4 allies wins.

on the other side, if the axis stall well enough and maybe even get the upper hand with caches up they are shortening the time to get their super weapons out by quite a bit. this like above have a root cause of caches and create a large problem in getting back into the game. In this case, it is also why arguably the axis get the better end of the stick because the early and mid game in a 4v4 lasts pitifully short compared to the late game where axis have their designed advantages

well one of the reasons (the main one in my opinion) that they are "game breaking" is that they expedite game advantages in a poor way. Due to having multiple players, it is easy to have someone build a cache or so early on.

I completely disagree. Building blobs of infantry which can run into suppression, throw nades and kill well-placed defensive line is bad for gameplay, and limiting resources will only lead to elite-inf spam into heaviest tanks. And guess which side wins elite-infantry battles and heaviest tanks competition.

In the allies side, if they gain an upperhand and have caches up all of the sudden there are huge early game or mid game vehicles out way sooner then they should be. This becomes a tremendous strain on getting back into the game as an axis team so there are many really short 4v4 allies wins.

So? It is not like Axis have much weaker early-game or cannot harass allied lines. If they on back foot they should work hard to get back into game, not get (relatively) free comeback machines on 11/15 cp.

on the other side, if the axis stall well enough and maybe even get the upper hand with caches up they are shortening the time to get their super weapons out by quite a bit. this like above have a root cause of caches and create a large problem in getting back into the game. In this case, it is also why arguably the axis get the better end of the stick because the early and mid game in a 4v4 lasts pitifully short compared to the late game where axis have their designed advantages

1 rushed t-70 or even m3 with guards can destroy cashes on most of the maps, punishing axis players who instead of investing into powerful infantry build worthless cashes even more. And axis holding their defensive line is what game should be. Axis have better tanks. Axis have better anti-tanks. Axis have better infantry. Better off- and on- maps. Better everything. Agin, if they want their powerful toys they should put themselves into risk. Building cashes is risky. Building blob on infantry which would steamtoll everything but heaviest tanks is not risky, it just stupid.

Extending kt arrival time by another 2-3 min will not somehow magically buff allied ability to push germans off the map, it only would make okw player to build 2/3 raketens in addition to his 3 shreck volks to COMPLETELY shut down any soviet player who will be foolish enough to try playing t3 instead just waiting for is2/t34-85/isu.

Then... call-in meta. I have enough of it in 1v1/2v2.

I completely disagree. Building blobs of infantry which can run into suppression, throw nades and kill well-placed defensive line is bad for gameplay, and limiting resources will only lead to elite-inf spam into heaviest tanks. And guess which side wins elite-infantry battles and heaviest tanks competition.



So? It is not like Axis have much weaker early-game or cannot harass allied lines. If they on back foot they should work hard to get back into game, not get (relatively) free comeback machines on 11/15 cp.



1 rushed t-70 or even m3 with guards can destroy cashes on most of the maps, punishing axis players who instead of investing into powerful infantry build worthless cashes even more. And axis holding their defensive line is what game should be. Axis have better tanks. Axis have better anti-tanks. Axis have better infantry. Better off- and on- maps. Better everything. Agin, if they want their powerful toys they should put themselves into risk. Building cashes is risky. Building blob on infantry which would steamtoll everything but heaviest tanks is not risky, it just stupid.

Extending kt arrival time by another 2-3 min will not somehow magically buff allied ability to push germans off the map, it only would make okw player to build 2/3 raketens in addition to his 3 shreck volks to COMPLETELY shut down any soviet player who will be foolish enough to try playing t3 instead just waiting for is2/t34-85/isu.

Then... call-in meta. I have enough of it in 1v1/2v2.

I am genuinely confused about your first post, My point was about advantages being extended/amplified, not defensive play and the design of axis. I was simply answering the above post as to why in 4v4s caches with the extremely high amount of resources on the map can be a problem.

For the second point it is kind of an issue in Relic's Asymmetric design philosophy. For example in 1v1s while the recent patch did improve Ostheer's early game a bit, it is still fragile. Now imagine taking that fragile early game and shattering it with a tank that shouldnt be arriving for another minute or so. now multiply that by four because four players with the shared income have a huge advantage to really put the hurt on. The point of this comment was to show how allies and axis suffer from the same fuel cache / high resource issue.

As for your last paragraph i'm not entirely sure if you are agreeing with me, or doing an example, or making your own post...?

Yeah, guys stop this bullshit and fight your fight via PM.
I'm sick of seeing every post getting reported because the other one feels insulted.

Good feedback thus far. This won't be a simple solution. What would happen to the game if there was no caches? Slow it down?

If there were no caches or reduced resource income I would expect a few things to happen:

1.) More infantry: First and foremost the manpower spent on caches would almost assuredly be spent on an extra infantry squad. Later in the game less fuel would mean less manpower spent on tanks. This in turn would allow for more manpower to be invested into infantry and support weapons.

2.) A longer early game: Less fuel income would directly translate into slower teching and a larger window for light vehicles, light tanks, and even medium tanks.

3.) Heavies will carry a greater opportunity cost: Currently it is possible to tech, build a number of medium tanks, and still have enough fuel to call in a heavy tank when the CPs are met. Without caches heavies will arrive at the same time but players will have to make a conscious choice to forgo or limit teching if they want to be able to afford a heavy tank the moment the CPs are available.

4.) Tank losses will hurt: Since tanks don't bleed fuel like infantry bleed manpower it is possible for teams to acquire enormous stores of fuel once pop cap is reached. This in turn allows players to near instantly replace any lost heavy tank. With less fuel available loosing a tank will be a much larger blow.

5.) There will be less explosions: Without munitions caches there will be fewer off map artillery abilities and plane strikes in 4v4 games and players will be inclined to use these strikes somewhat more tactically. The same will also be true of grenades and other munitions abilities. This will also mean that infantry upgrades will compete to a larger degree with off-map arty for munitions use and in turn make killing upgraded infantry squads that much more rewarding.

OKW T1 and T2 are equal with power and versatility, USF T1 and T2 are not, simple curve like that doesn't show the tier strength.

That as well isn't accurate power curve of tiers.

Soviets T1 and T2 have "power level" about T1,5 to T2,5 While T3 and T4 are both T3 level and this is where the curve stops while it goes further up for ost T4.

Just to point out these basic flaws. And I don't care who made the curves, mistakes are mistakes.

Just slow down any income by 0.3 or 0.4. Any, MP, Ammo, Fuel and caches.
So instead of KT 15 min mark, you have a KT at 25/30 min mark if you can survive that long without investing in midgame units.

3vs3 and 4vs4 are actually too fast, faster than 1vs1 and 2vs2. We all know that.
With the current meta, unit path + moment of fight + teching are simply not fast enough to drain any MP/Ammo/Fuel income. Not like in 1vs1 or 2vs2.
Many time, you build your force, you move to the choke point, you fight and the moment your retreat to reinforce, you're already full of resources to reinforce all of your squads, full of ammo to use your special abilities as you want for the next fight and fuel to build your next tank.

So let's use some wording.
You have:
1- Time To Fight (comprise between the moment you leave your base to the moment to finish your fight)
2- Time To Reinforce (comprise between the moment you finish your fight and the moment your finish to reinforce - at your base or on the field)
3- Time To Get Resources to reinforce. (time for your income to naturally reach the amount to fully reinforce your available squads)

Bigger the map is, bigger the TTF and TTR are, and in its way also TTGR since there is more resource points to cap in 3vs3 and 4vs4 maps.

If your TTF + TTR = TTGR, every time you fight and retreat to reinforce, you will find enough resource to reinforce all your army and come back to fight with the only TTR delay. This is pretty much the situation we are facing today in 3vs3 and 4vs4.

If now you reduce the TTGR by 0.3 or 0.4, TTF + TTR will be higher than TTGR.
Consequences:
1- You will immobilize your force at your base more time between fights. Which is not good in term of strategy. This may force people to blob less, or to build less units to reduce your upkeep consumption. Or to play more conservative, here again less blobbing and using more covers.
2- You will have to make more decisions between reinforcing and leveling. If you have less income, you'll need to decide when you want to reinforce and when you need to tier up your army. So you may decide to keep going a bit more at a lower tier or to tier up. But if your opponent successfully tier up, you'll have to counter him. If you don't you'll lose more resource by reinforcing more your losses delaying more your teching. If you tier up too fast, you may be overwhelmed by your opponent by lack of units.

So there it is, in conclusion, lowering any income (and not only caches) will simply force people to make strong decisions and assume them since any loss will have a biggest impact on his army.
In my opinion, it would simply put it at 1vs1 and 2vs2 speed. So nothing extremely wrong

Cutoffs hard to reach in 4 vs 4 maps, tough to deny fuel to axis. I would love that changed. Maby more early game non doc options for indirect fire/building counters like flames for US/OKW. The howie from captain tear US arrives really late and let's not talk about the nerfed Scott Howie. I just think they're to linear in play.

WFA Factions -> To few units which are to strong stock in the time that they arrive. Nerf units give more options, force playings to go combined arms like Werh. Werh is just such good design imo. I liked the combined arms that OKW has with the recent nerfes. Just forced them going combined.

Teching to LT then Captain is suicide for US, even werh can get faster tanks out then US if LT > Captain > Major.

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.

Just slow down any income by 0.3 or 0.4. Any, MP, Ammo, Fuel and caches.
So instead of KT 15 min mark, you have a KT at 25/30 min mark if you can survive that long without investing in midgame units.

3vs3 and 4vs4 are actually too fast, faster than 1vs1 and 2vs2. We all know that.
With the current meta, unit path + moment of fight + teching are simply not fast enough to drain any MP/Ammo/Fuel income. Not like in 1vs1 or 2vs2.
Many time, you build your force, you move to the choke point, you fight and the moment your retreat to reinforce, you're already full of resources to reinforce all of your squads, full of ammo to use your special abilities as you want for the next fight and fuel to build your next tank.

So let's use some wording.
You have:
1- Time To Fight (comprise between the moment you leave your base to the moment to finish your fight)
2- Time To Reinforce (comprise between the moment you finish your fight and the moment your finish to reinforce - at your base or on the field)
3- Time To Get Resources to reinforce. (time for your income to naturally reach the amount to fully reinforce your available squads)

Bigger the map is, bigger the TTF and TTR are, and in its way also TTGR since there is more resource points to cap in 3vs3 and 4vs4 maps.

If your TTF + TTR = TTGR, every time you fight and retreat to reinforce, you will find enough resource to reinforce all your army and come back to fight with the only TTR delay. This is pretty much the situation we are facing today in 3vs3 and 4vs4.

If now you reduce the TTGR by 0.3 or 0.4, TTF + TTR will be higher than TTGR.
Consequences:
1- You will immobilize your force at your base more time between fights. Which is not good in term of strategy. This may force people to blob less, or to build less units to reduce your upkeep consumption. Or to play more conservative, here again less blobbing and using more covers.
2- You will have to make more decisions between reinforcing and leveling. If you have less income, you'll need to decide when you want to reinforce and when you need to tier up your army. So you may decide to keep going a bit more at a lower tier or to tier up. But if your opponent successfully tier up, you'll have to counter him. If you don't you'll lose more resource by reinforcing more your losses delaying more your teching. If you tier up too fast, you may be overwhelmed by your opponent by lack of units.

So there it is, in conclusion, lowering any income (and not only caches) will simply force people to make strong decisions and assume them since any loss will have a biggest impact on his army.
In my opinion, it would simply put it at 1vs1 and 2vs2 speed. So nothing extremely wrong

This guy actually has a clue what he's tolkien about. Nice post.

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.

so you are suggesting maps with a wide frontline, but short "supply paths".?

so you are suggesting maps with a wide frontline, but short "supply paths".?

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

I think 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 would be more fun with limit of 1 heavy tank per player. I really want to see more Medium armor play. I think fuel caches helps Allies more than Axis, just get rid of this Luftwaffe fuel drop for OKW. The supplies should only be for the Wehrmacht player.

Extended Mid game would be great if we can do this some how.

Honestly, we cannot get rid of Call ins in COH2. Soviets are reliant on this 100%, even Relic admitted this.

+1 @ IpKaiFung mapping issues.

OKW T1 and T2 are equal with power and versatility, USF T1 and T2 are not, simple curve like that doesn't show the tier strength.


That as well isn't accurate power curve of tiers.

Soviets T1 and T2 have "power level" about T1,5 to T2,5 While T3 and T4 are both T3 level and this is where the curve stops while it goes further up for ost T4.

Just to point out these basic flaws. And I don't care who made the curves, mistakes are mistakes.

Your missing the point. The graphs are to show you that the teching makes no sense because as Soviets you get to your late game units after your very first tier, and as USF/OKW you get to your late game units after your very first tier.

It's not about power relative to each other, it's power relative to what the end goal is. I just decrease the power of USF to 4 so the lines in the first graph didn't overlap. But the non-linear teching simply doesn't make sense because a USF player doesn't want to back tech when those units are already obsolete, and the OKW player will normally only do so to get a KT out.

Ostheer is the only one that makes sense because your units get more powerful in a logical slope upwards, rather than you jumping from your very first units to your very last.

I think 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 would be more fun with limit of 1 heavy tank per player. I really want to see more Medium armor play. I think fuel caches helps Allies more than Axis, just get rid of this Luftwaffe fuel drop for OKW. The supplies should only be for the Wehrmacht player.

Extended Mid game would be great if we can do this some how.

Honestly, we cannot get rid of Call ins in COH2. Soviets are reliant on this 100%, even Relic admitted this.

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.