4v4 can't be balanced, they said

Balance in 4v4, now I've heard it all.
But dont get me wrong, if its enjoyable, all the better. 1s aren't exactly great fun now unless you are a complete tryhard.

3v3's need more map vetos. It is the ONLY reason I don't play that game mode.

3v3: they need to remove all the maps which spawns 1 guy separated from the other 2.

1v1 players are skilled in 1v1 because this is the game mode they practice the most.
4v4 players are skilled in 4v4 because this is the game mode they practice the most.

Being good at 1v1 does not translate into being good in 4v4.
Being good at 4v4 does not translate into being good in 1v1.

Pretty sure 4v4AT teams were able to crush 1v1 all-stars in the LOH tourney (who assumed 4v4 players have no clue what they are doing, so can we please put that nonsense to rest now)

Not sure why the 1v1 fanbois are in here raining. We all support coh2. We all want this community to succeed. Smashing others based on subjective opinions is doing nothing for anyone.

1v1 players are skilled in 1v1 because this is the game mode they practice the most.
4v4 players are skilled in 4v4 because this is the game mode they practice the most.

Being good at 1v1 does not translate into being good in 4v4.
Being good at 4v4 does not translate into being good in 1v1.

Pretty sure 4v4AT teams were able to crush 1v1 all-stars in the LOH tourney (who assumed 4v4 players have no clue what they are doing, so can we please put that nonsense to rest now)

Not sure why the 1v1 fanbois are in here raining. We all support coh2. We all want this community to succeed. Smashing others based on subjective opinions is doing nothing for anyone.

i know for sure thats not the case for vcoh. alot of streamer(1v1, 2v2) said that 4v4 is relative easy and got their high ranks there pretty easy. the difference is not that big from vcoh to coh2.

just think about it, 1v1 is about your gameplay only, everything you do is directly related to you. 2v2 is the pretty much the same just with the factor of teamwork.

in 4v4 you can do major fuckups and just stall with your mates because 3 people can still defend versus 4 people (attacking is always harder than defending), and no the same does not apply to 2v2 because defending 2v1 is harder than 3v4.
or can you tell me a reason why there is no competitve scene for larger gamemodes? why is almost every streamer a 1v1 or 2v2 player?

3v3: they need to remove all the maps which spawns 1 guy separated from the other 2.

Hello City 17 3v3, my old friend

"rommel fanboys"

made my day XD

i know for sure thats not the case for vcoh. alot of streamer(1v1, 2v2) said that 4v4 is relative easy and got their high ranks there pretty easy. the difference is not that big from vcoh to coh2.

just think about it, 1v1 is about your gameplay only, everything you do is directly related to you. 2v2 is the pretty much the same just with the factor of teamwork.

in 4v4 you can do major fuckups and just stall with your mates because 3 people can still defend versus 4 people (attacking is always harder than defending), and no the same does not apply to 2v2 because defending 2v1 is harder than 3v4.
or can you tell me a reason why there is no competitve scene for larger gamemodes? why is almost every streamer a 1v1 or 2v2 player?

This is coh2 - it has a different competitive scene from coh1.

4v4 is about your game-play and your teamwork. In 1v1 its easy to account for an enemies army - I know how many units he has on the field and once he retreats I know I have a short advantage to take the field uncontested - 4v4 this is not the case.

If you are playing high level 4v4 - major fuckups will hinder your team no different than other team game if we assume games are played in vacuum where all 8 players are of equal skill.

Here is an example: arguably 4 of the best 1v1 players, literally some of the best in the game losing because of poor teamwork and strategy, which brings me back to my original post; 1v1 players are good at 1v1 because it is what they practice - the same goes for competitive 4v4ers. (Sorry its in russian and sorry to use rTn as an example but its only because they are so good at 1v1 and proves my point nicely 1v1allstars vs 4v4 plebs..

Your last statement was why streams and casts are done of 1s/2s not 4s: Because there is simply too much going on in 4v4 to stream/cast. This has been and will always be why more people cast 1s/2s.

4v4 really isn't all that crazy. Most the time it's just 2 separate 2v2 battles going on at opposite ends of the map. With whoever wins their side first coming over to help the other side.

And not everyone who plays 4v4 always plays 4v4. I constantly switch between 2v2 and 4v4, playing seldom 1v1s here and there. But I don't think people understand that 1v1 is actually the most unique of the modes with capping power being far more important then any other mode. If anything 2v2 should be the standard not 1v1.

This is coh2 - it has a different competitive scene from coh1.

4v4 is about your game-play and your teamwork. In 1v1 its easy to account for an enemies army - I know how many units he has on the field and once he retreats I know I have a short advantage to take the field uncontested - 4v4 this is not the case.

If you are playing high level 4v4 - major fuckups will hinder your team no different than other team game if we assume games are played in vacuum where all 8 players are of equal skill.

Here is an example: arguably 4 of the best 1v1 players, literally some of the best in the game losing because of poor teamwork and strategy, which brings me back to my original post; 1v1 players are good at 1v1 because it is what they practice - the same goes for competitive 4v4ers. (Sorry its in russian and sorry to use rTn as an example but its only because they are so good at 1v1 and proves my point nicely 1v1allstars vs 4v4 plebs..

Your last statement was why streams and casts are done of 1s/2s not 4s: Because there is simply too much going on in 4v4 to stream/cast. This has been and will always be why more people cast 1s/2s.

oh thanks forgot this is coh2. thats the reason why i wrote "he difference is not that big from vcoh to coh2." but hey everybody has their oppinions i guess.

4v4 elitism is bad.
1v1 elitism is bad.
Casual elitism is bad (sounds like an oxymoron).
Hardcore elitism is bad.
Elitism is bad.

I've seen 1v1 players preclude the possibility of 4v4 being balanced before and after looking at the stats--and that's fine, because it's impossible to interpret stats without a framework to interpret them by. What's retarded is when they have an illogical framework.

Momo for example, his framework is simply "4v4 is a scrub mode." Therefore, 4v4s inherently can't be balanced, no matter what. I ask him to prove his premise and he wouldn't.

4v4 is more forgiving if any one particular member is deficient in one area or another, because they have teammates to lean on.

Does that make it nooby?
No.
Skill still matters. Individual skill matters less, aye, but group skills like communication, strategy, and division of labour matter more than ever.

To be honest, if I could or even wanted to play 4v4, I'd pull off the most stupid strategies ever because I've got a team of three to carry me when ti all goes wrong.

I'm not saying 4v4 is scrub mode, a 4v4 practised team vs 1v1 all stars would win, it's just much more about team work rather than individual strategy.

And yeah, elitism is bad but I'm a 1v1 fanboy so I'll steer clear of that argument.

1
Skill still matters. Individual skill matters less, aye, but group skills like communication, strategy, and division of labour matter more than ever.

thats why balancing for 4v4 is bad because its more about teamwork and not using units to their fullest potential.

I also think quite a large amount of axis players are stuck in the mentality that if they just camp till late game, they will win. I still don't think its "hard" as axis in 4v4's but it isn't as easy as it was.

This is certainly true, since the Brits came on the scene it's been the Allies that have been holding out for late game abilities and the Axis Plan 1 that's been the same since the game came out of "Hold 1VP and 1 Fuel and wait for the late game" doesn't work anymore

This is certainly true, since the Brits came on the scene it's been the Allies that have been holding out for late game abilities and the Axis Plan 1 that's been the same since the game came out of "Hold 1VP and 1 Fuel and wait for the late game" doesn't work anymore

thats the reason why axis have the stronger early game. oh wait

4v4 elitism is bad.
1v1 elitism is bad.
Casual elitism is bad (sounds like an oxymoron).
Hardcore elitism is bad.
Elitism is bad.

I've seen 1v1 players preclude the possibility of 4v4 being balanced before and after looking at the stats--and that's fine, because it's impossible to interpret stats without a framework to interpret them by. What's retarded is when they have an illogical framework.

Momo for example, his framework is simply "4v4 is a scrub mode." Therefore, 4v4s inherently can't be balanced, no matter what. I ask him to prove his premise and he wouldn't.

4v4 is more forgiving if any one particular member is deficient in one area or another, because they have teammates to lean on.

Does that make it nooby?
No.
Skill still matters. Individual skill matters less, aye, but group skills like communication, strategy, and division of labour matter more than ever.

I just want to be clear I don't think 4v4 is superior to 1v1 and of course the game should be balanced for 1s.

I don't think 4v4AT is this scrubshit fest of people running around with no idea what to do either. There are some elite teams in 4v4AT that have very competitive and 'skilled' games.

I think everyone would agree that the best players in the game are the elite 1v1 guys.


People just seem to think this though:

1v1 elite



4v4 elite

I personally prefer 2v2 games, however, i can 1v1 only atm, computer is struggling to run this game, these days.
pretty much just started 1v1, and i really am starting to enjoy it!
its kinda like me vs them type of thing. Almost feels like a dynamic chess match. Which when i do win a game im like totally freaking out with YAYS!!!


nothing wrong with 3v3, 4v4 they just don't rub me right.

4v4 is a noobstomp/drop at start/disconnection 90% of the time. That's the problem.

I just want to be clear I don't think 4v4 is superior to 1v1 and of course the game should be balanced for 1s.

I don't think 4v4AT is this scrubshit fest of people running around with no idea what to do either. There are some elite teams in 4v4AT that have very competitive and 'skilled' games.

I think everyone would agree that the best players in the game are the elite 1v1 guys.


People just seem to think this though:

1v1 elite



4v4 elite

Right, that's the perception, but we're certainly nowhere near Korean Pro Player eSports level in any game mode.

Most ESL games are team games. It's not hard at all to imagine a world with a better designed 4v4 CoH2 eSports scene. Not that we should be striving after that or any eSports goal in particular besides generally making the game superior in design, but...

And to clarify for anyone else, I mean elitism like "my group is superior to your group nyeh!"

thats why balancing for 4v4 is bad because its more about teamwork and not using units to their fullest potential.

I'm not so sure.
Balancing for 1v1s won't necessarily ruin the balance for 4v4s because the balance on units in particular has roughly proportional effect on their use in team games. As individual skill has decreased, the use of said units in strategy and teamwork has increased, again I'd say roughly proportionally.

Now, there are some cases where this doesn't apply, but those are because of easily identifiable qualitative characteristics to certain units. Say, heavy tank destroyers are actually usable in 4v4s because they're not as easily flankable and the handlers have more information gathering abilities, not because they have oh so high penetration or a given amount of armour or speed.

The problem with 4v4 before Brits was faction design centered, in that Allies lacked many credible late game centered functions that the Axis had. Yet the other Allied powers in 1v1 got boosts only to certain parts of their late game (mainline infantry scaling) and now they're utterly dominating. Axis infantry could have better scaling too and it would affect 1v1 more than 4v4 I think.

I question the strict need for balance as it relates to tournaments anyways. We have a faction counterpick system based on whoever does better with their VPs in Bo3 matches. As long as frustrating design is eliminated, people won't complain about balance as much in any game mode, even if the balance is a wee bit off.

1v1 have it unique advantages and disadvantages, 4v4 have it unique advantages and disadvantages.

Until you played close games against top players/teams in both modes, your opinion on how those modes compare worth as much as hardcore axis/allies fanbois balance views.