Is the 3v3 and 4v4 general balance ever going to be fixed?

As we all know, the game is pirmarily balanced for 1v1 and to some extend 2v2.

3v3 and 4v4 is sort of a perverted - alas fun - version of the game. But the balance is horrid and the pattern is recognisable: In 90% of the games it's either the Allies clamping down on the game early. OR a longer game which ends in the usual axis flood of tanks or rocket-/stuka fire.

And I guess it's no secret which side 3v3+ generally favours, allthough it's besides the point here. The lacking balance does have an unfortunate side effect, though: it's very hard to get a game as axis because everyone and his granma is Qing for a game on the axis side. A quite normal distribution is 75/25 in axis favor. Quite often it's 85/15 though.

I'm fine with the games units being balanced to 1v1, but it still puzzles me that nothing is done to alter the game conditions in 3v3 and 4v4 so it becomes more of an open game. Plus it's annoying not being able to play both sides equally much.

There would be a number of options, I think. Lower pop cap or higher unit prices (especially on ranged units) for example? But it may not be technically possible?

As a sporadic user of this forum, I could have missed any Relic statement on 3v3 and 4v4 balance. Does anyone know what (if any) statement they have made on it?

This past tourney that included 3v3 and 4v4 games saw a very high degree of competitiveness. I can say from experience my teams Allied 3's and 4's had a good win ratio. The issue is that the coordination required between team mates in Allied 3's and 4's is higher, while this is less true for Axis.

As always, it will be fixed when relic finally realizes how bad of an idea combined caches are. Of course the faction that's supposed to be resource starved is going to be overpowered when it's receiving the benefits of a field full of fuel caches.

Allies benefit from it too, but dealing with a critical mass of allied armor is much easier then dealing with a critical mass of axis armor.

In general the game isn't balanced around the amount of resources floating around in team games because of caches.

The issue is that the coordination required between team mates in Allied 3's and 4's is higher, while this is less true for Axis.

I never had that picture. Why do you think so?

In general the game isn't balanced around the amount of resources floating around in team games because of caches.

Good point, but I don't think that's all. It's also got something to do with pack benefits. It seems like the axis side benefits more from swarms than the Allies. Or maybe they are just easier to play.

In any case some kind of tax should be introduced to even out the balance and the player distribution.

I Wonder if the 3v3+ win/lose ratio of all games is something like the player distribution (app 75/25)?

I never had that picture. Why do you think so?

Well forward trucks and bunker/other defenses are straight forward and easy to coordinate, while the more subtle things like dropping weapons for team mates with airborne or gifting tanks or sharing medics often don't occur to random players.

As always, it will be fixed when relic finally realizes how bad of an idea combined caches are. Of course the faction that's supposed to be resource starved is going to be overpowered when it's receiving the benefits of a field full of fuel caches.

Is this argument really still valid? In the last tourney I thought the least played faction was OKW? Most of the winning Axis teams only had 1-0 OKW players. The problem being that OKW lacks stopping power early game against big groups of maxims and lacks big Arty counters in the mid-late game where Arty rules.

Time and time again until you guys learn: caches benefit allies much more than axis.

It won't be fixed until they completely rework the way balance is done. Unless they make specific changes that only affect 3v3 and 4v4 matchups it's not gonna happen.

The day they change the resource system for team games is the day it's actually possible without destroying 1v1 and 2v2 balance.

Time and time again until you guys learn: caches benefit allies much more than axis.

Except if it's OKW...

Except if it's OKW...

So you want to fight OKW manpower only army with your manpower only army? I wish you luck.

Random: Axis > Allies
High AT: Allies > Axis
Low AT: Axis > Allies

The only reason for those ridiculous win rates is matchmaking, not faction balance:

High ranked axis players seal club low rank allies player 90 % of the matches.
And usually as a top ally player you end up with complete noob mates, which lowers your motivation to zero and thus further decreases ally playerbase in 3vs3+ matches.

If you check AT ally win rates they are completely identical to the axis ones. That means, when equally skilled teams face each other, the are no balance issues.

I hope the brits increase the ally playerbase enough to fix that matchmaking gap finally.

There are a variety of inbuilt balance issues in team game modes.

• Some factions are stronger in the endgame than the early game. As you add more players to a game, the longer / later the game gets on average. This implies that the larger the team game mode, the more likely it is that late game factions will be allowed to shine compared to early / mid game factions. The window of opportunity for teams that need to do their damage early is shrunk considerably and most of the game time is spent in the phase where the lategame factions are strongest.
  
• Some factions are intended to be resource limited, but can benefit from resource sharing to a significant degree in team game modes
  
• Resources are plentiful in team games generally, and any balance based around rationing of fuel becomes diluted or made outright irrelevant.
  
• The larger the team game, the more simultaneous fronts a player may have to worry about. This increases the micro burden.
  
• Higher player counts on small maps means concentrated firepower. Fragile units are very likely to die when a single mistake is made, while heavier ones are more survivable and can be repaired for "free".
  

Axis dominate big team games because of these factors even in the current meta where they are inferior in 1v1 to Soviets. USF is borderline useless in large team games, if your whole team isn't Soviets you might as well pack up and go home. The micro tax for USF is already huge, when you've got big team games with paks on every flank, roving shrek blobs and multiple CAS players making you dodge strafes constantly you WILL make mistakes and you WILL lose your tanks, even if you're playing very well and eventually win. The USF tank swarms get stuck on shitty pathing constantly especially on urban maps or maps with weird / tight geometry.

Currently SU76 spam into 152 dominates OKW players mostly, but this is a temporary situation which will be fixed soon. OH is more popular regardless in my experience of this patch and is probably in a better spot balnace wise vs the howitzers, but more vulnerable to a fast quad. But fast quad isn't as devestating when there's guaranteed to be early shreks / paks all over the enemy lines. It's still damn good, but not as devastating as it is in 1v1 and 2v2 to some extent.

The British may bring some serious punch into BTB for allies, but it will suck if USF continues to be the irrelevant black sheep of the Allies in team game modes. That's the main reason I'm lobbying for Persh and Calliope for America, even if they're not very good in 1v1s because of economic balancing, they'll be very useful to augment Americans in team games and make them viable by giving them the late game indirect and late game heavy armor they lack.

• Some factions are stronger in the endgame than the early game. As you add more players to a game, the longer / later the game gets on average. This implies that the larger the team game mode, the more likely it is that late game factions will be allowed to shine compared to early / mid game factions. The window of opportunity for teams that need to do their damage early is shrunk considerably and most of the game time is spent in the phase where the lategame factions are strongest.
  ...
  

this has to be fixed one day. now would be best.

relic should design the factions so that the balance of power evens out late-late game. y'know what i mean?

like ok, axis can be better at late game but when games go long, they can't be indefinitely better.

I agree to those 5 points, allthough I do not recognise the description of the USF as that useless (could depend on level ofc).

But I don't think the solution is to wreck the delicate balance that is in 1v1.

The proper solution must be to get seperate unit values for 1v1+2v2 and 3v3+4v4.

And good luck hoping for the brits to do anything for the Allied side. Even if they do, it'll be temporary and they'll get nerfed soon enough. As always. I've been around since the early COH1 so I know the drill...

I agree to those 5 points, allthough I do not recognise the description of the USF as that useless (could depend on level ofc).

But I don't think the solution is to wreck the delicate balance that is in 1v1.

The proper solution must be to get seperate unit values for 1v1+2v2 and 3v3+4v4.

And good luck hoping for the brits to do anything for the Allied side. Even if they do, it'll be temporary and they'll get nerfed soon enough. As always. I've been around since the early COH1 so I know the drill...

Maybe before posting a 100000th thread about larger team games you should ask "Jadame!" Advices, he have 101 win streak with his 4v4 Allies Team, that would be a great way to improve, aren't you agree ?

USF has its utility in 4vs4, but you must completely re-think your gameplay. It is also a bet in random, betting your allied are not that dumb and use the tool you are giving them.

This is why Allied are better in team game, because tools are shared and used and Allied tools are stronger while paper made.

Resource inflation will always keep bigger games imbalanced.

Brits might equalize it more, but at the end it'll be axis on top in these modes as it have always been since day 1.

Resource inflation will always keep bigger games imbalanced.

Brits might equalize it more, but at the end it'll be axis on top in these modes as it have always been since day 1.

Yes it has, and that's why I simply wanted to know if Relic had any plans changing anything for 3v3+

But ofc. it isn't the end of the world if they don't. The game is still a gem. Otherwise you and I and ppl like us wouldnt still be playing it after - what? - 10 years now?

There is without a doubt no way to competitively balance random 4v4 and 3v3 matches. ThoseDeafMutes pretty much hit everything there is, and these fundamental problems most likely can't be fixed without some really husky changes to many things. One idea might be to make it so both teams are comprised of Allied and Axis factions (or maybe, some sort of mirror-matching where each team is comprised of the same factions to correspond to the opposing, that way each team has the same potential at all stages, emphasizing more teamwork and synergy).

However, there still is no way to play team games competitively without 4-manning with some friends (some premade team ladders may not be bad, Relic). You literally never can trust random people on the internet to be competent or at the very least willing to cooperate. If you are familiar with the MOBA-genre games, this same problem exists for the entire community and only compounded with itself from all the frustration, which resulted in "yolo" queuing in ranked matches really living up to its name.

On the bright side, my buddies and I never really found Allies to have too much trouble late game. We find it great to mimic the Axis fuel cache spam as the US, where we make an indomitable herd of Shermans and Jacksons and take a joy ride straight to Berlin (or at least their bases).