4v4 can't be balanced, they said
Posts: 1954
IMHO, the units that used to unbalance the 4v4's were ones like the JT's, Elefants, and pre-nerf KT which (with the possible exception of the KT) didn't effect 1v1's so much. The 26 pop cap that accompanied those, match with another 20-30 pop cap to keep it supported often meant that the axis player didn't have a lot of capping power, and not supporting it could get your Elefant killed by a lowly T34/76. Since the arrival of the 6 pounder and Churchill, those units don't unbalance a 4v4 very much, if at all. Also, the synergy that used to be mostly just with Ost and OKW now can happen with UKF and either Soviet or USF.
Posts: 210
Posts: 378
IMHO, the units that are still unbalance the 4v4's were ones like the JT's, Elefants, and pre-nerf KT which (with the possible exception of the KT) didn't effect 1v1's so much... Since the arrival of the 6 pounder and Churchill, those units keep being unbalance a 4v4 very much, if at all...
Fix several points for you.
ISU-152 spot commander is removed while Elefant 360angle spotting scope is kept.
JT destroys Churchill like knife through butter. With vet1 it can outrange and decrew atgun, 6 pounder included.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
League is like.. one of the most competitive games out there and it's 5v5. 1v1 is nice and all and I used to do hundreds of 1v1's but it gets pretty stale after a while. Especially when CoH is not meant for 1v1's. That's for Starcraft.
imagine LoL with 5v5 and every player controlling 5-10 units (champions in this case). its balacned in 5v5 because players only control one unit, not like coh at all.
Posts: 210
imagine LoL with 5v5 and every player controlling 5-10 units (champions in this case). its balacned in 5v5 because players only control one unit, not like coh at all.
I'm not talking about the balance. 4v4 is more balanced than 1v1 or 2v2 at the moment. I'm talking about the competitive scene because some people think doing 1v1 is what the game is all about.
Posts: 498
I find playing 3v3 and 4v4 fun as long as I have a full premade
And about LoL and other team based competitive games, they're designed to be balanced at a competitive level and to be played with teams, there's a huuuuuge difference compared to coh2 3v3 or 4v4
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
The only reason I don't like 3v3 and 4v4 is because of the player base and the way those gamemodes "work". I just can't see the same depth for 4v4 as I see for 2v2 and 1v1,other thing are the competitive scenes, there's not one for 3v3 or 4v4 but for 1v1 and 2v2 there is, and imo RTS games are ment to be played in 1v1 instead of 4v4 since 1v1 is more about induvidual skill
I find playing 3v3 and 4v4 fun as long as I have a full premade
And about LoL and other team based competitive games, they're designed to be balanced at a competitive level and to be played with teams, there's a huuuuuge difference compared to coh2 3v3 or 4v4
i just thought about your "way those gamemode works" thing.
one thing i absolutly hate is how static they are. for example you got 17 cap points (including vps) on angoville, with a 50/50 distribution means you need to cap 8 points.
most 4v4 maps got roughly the same amount of caps or even less which means per player you need to only cap 2 points.
there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests. 1v1 and 2v2 are just way more "mobile" and flexible how the maps are played
Posts: 498
i just thought about your "way those gamemode works" thing.
one thing i absolutly hate is how static they are. for example you got 17 cap points (including vps) on angoville, with a 50/50 distribution means you need to cap 8 points.
most 4v4 maps got roughly the same amount of caps or even less which means per player you need to only cap 2 points.
there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests. 1v1 and 2v2 are just way more "mobile" and flexible how the maps are played
+1
Posts: 378
i just thought about your "way those gamemode works" thing.
one thing i absolutly hate is how static they are. for example you got 17 cap points (including vps) on angoville, with a 50/50 distribution means you need to cap 8 points.
most 4v4 maps got roughly the same amount of caps or even less which means per player you need to only cap 2 points.
You get wrong definition from the start.
4v4 is not 1v1 + 1v1 + 1v1 + 1v1.
Even there are 4 players, you have to cap 8 points. Not 2 points.
If you think you only cap 2 points, your enemy will take advantage and start ganging 2v1 or 3v1 upon you.
This is very important. I have seen many noob players camping peacefully while their teammate cry in pain.
4v4 in high level is often the same or even harder than 1v1, not only you have to coordinate with your friend, but sometimes you have to defend yourself against the impossible 1v2, 1v3.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
you didnt understood what i wrote. you got 8 points to cap and 4 pios ( per player 1 ) so you WILL cap every point no matter what. now look at 1v1 or 2v2, you got 1-2 pios to cap 8 points so you need to make a decision which points to cap ( prio on fuel? muni? ) and you dont have enough troops in 1v1 or 2v2 to hold the whole frontline, means some sneaky side capping is happening all the time, or even whole shifts of frontlines.
meanwhile in 4v4 you have enough troops to cover most if not all of the frontline and sneaky sidecapping is kinda hard too which makes the game again static. maybe im totally wrong here but i never saw a 4v4 so dynamic as a 1v1 or 2v2, most often the control of the map did barely change
which means per player you need to only cap 2 points.
you have to cap 2 points per player, there is nothing wrong with this, doesnt mtter how you want to twist it..
Posts: 378
you didnt understood what i wrote. you got 8 points to cap and 4 pios ( per player 1 ) so you WILL cap every point no matter what. now look at 1v1 or 2v2, you got 1-2 pios to cap 8 points so you need to make a decision which points to cap ( prio on fuel? muni? ) and you dont have enough troops in 1v1 or 2v2 to hold the whole frontline, means some sneaky side capping is happening all the time, or even whole shifts of frontlines.
meanwhile in 4v4 you have enough troops to cover most if not all of the frontline and sneaky sidecapping is kinda hard too which makes the game again static. maybe im totally wrong here but i never saw a 4v4 so dynamic as a 1v1 or 2v2, most often the control of the map did barely change
you have to cap 2 points per player, there is nothing wrong with this, doesnt mtter how you want to twist it..
That's where you are wrong. 4v4 have more squads on the field, and therefore initial cap is FASTER, not cap LESS point.
If 1v1 have 4 times more troops and resource, then the same thing can happen.
And 4v4 is way more dynamic than you think. Player does not have to force on meta, and can use many unusable Relic commander to win the match.
As OKW, for example, you can purchase flak HT to support your teammate without much worry about fuel depleted or losing teching advantage.
Oh, and btw, losing a munition or fuel point is 4x pain than 1v1, don't think you can leave the southern and mid Steppes to enemy and still win the game.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
If 1v1 have 4 times more troops and resource, then the same thing can happen.
thats exactly my point, but 1v1 doenst have 4x the troops.
but nvm i dont understand your point and your not mine so im just gonna leave it as it is.
Posts: 59
there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests. 1v1 and 2v2 are just way more "mobile" and flexible how the maps are played
I agree that sometimes it can be pretty static and there are certain positions which are almost bumrushed to secure an advantage, but there are times when the entire front shifts are a result of a snowball that happens somewhere else on the map. But then again I've also played many games where it devolves into an arty match to dislodge the opposition from their strongpoint.
I think it's also worth considering that it takes units much longer to retreat back to their main base (for not all factions have forward retreat points) on a 4v4 map than a 1v1, so it's not as devastating losing presence on a 1v1 because you can get them back in the fight relatively quickly. It might also seem more mobile on a small map because units aren't spending all day moving to a position
Posts: 59
And 4v4 is way more dynamic than you think. Player does not have to force on meta, and can use many unusable Relic commander to win the match.
I agree and disagree with your point here.
While I agree that players aren't forced into meta in 4v4, there still exists 4v4 meta and it exists for a reason; it's just not the same meta as 1v1 or 2v2. If you look at last patch, for example, OKW meta was spam LeiG and push; before that, Brit meta was get Centaurs and Churchills/Crocs and Axis prepared for these units accordingly.
There are always going to be commanders that are preferred because their utility could potentially help the whole team (e.g. CAS), and some which are simply not used because they're not that great. So yes, while you can use an unconventional commander and win, this may come at the cost of your teammates who now have to cover the weaknesses in the team as a result of your commander choice.
Either way, individual skill and being able to work together with your team means a lot more in 4v4 than in 2v2.
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
i just thought about your "way those gamemode works" thing.
one thing i absolutly hate is how static they are. for example you got 17 cap points (including vps) on angoville, with a 50/50 distribution means you need to cap 8 points.
most 4v4 maps got roughly the same amount of caps or even less which means per player you need to only cap 2 points.
there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests. 1v1 and 2v2 are just way more "mobile" and flexible how the maps are played
To me it seems like you're trying to describe your impressions (or just theorycraft) about something you have never experienced by yourself.
Grab a friend or two and try it a few times. I'm sure you'll change your mind.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
To me it seems like you're trying to describe your impressions (or just theorycraft) about something you have never experienced by yourself.
Grab a friend or two and try it a few times. I'm sure you'll change your mind.
im sorry, but i did several times and it just looked like a massive spam fest to me and my premade friends. is it fun? yes do i like it to play "competetive"? no its just to much blobbing and to much arty
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
im sorry, but i did several times and it just looked like a massive spam fest to me and my premade friends. is it fun? yes do i like it to play "competetive"? no its just to much blobbing and to much arty
4vs4 is the worst mode for spam due to the diverstiy of playstyles and factions among the players which can counter each other easily.
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
im sorry, but i did several times and it just looked like a massive spam fest to me and my premade friends. is it fun? yes do i like it to play "competetive"? no its just to much blobbing and to much arty
Well, maybe we like CoH2 for different aspects of game.
I don't like 1v1 for all this "capping" thing. It feels like you are playing tag, not fighting in a war.
4v4 is more deadly, when you're flanking with all your force applied to one overextended enemy group.
It is more dense when you quickly switch flanks and crush opponents in 2v3 battle.
It is more diverse in terms of commander/tech choice (although, it may be so because of amplitude of matchmaking).
Also I should say that you encounter blobbing and spamfest even in 1v1 (just watch any cpt.SPrice game )
Experienced player will counter your spam easily will be it 1v1 or 4v4.
Posts: 378
Having friends share or chatting through the moment of team battle is way better than keep yourself alone with your opponent.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
Anyways, the main reason I despite 1v1 is simply it takes too much stamina and stress to fight. I play the game to relieve stress, not to build it up.
Having friends share or chatting through the moment of team battle is way better than keep yourself alone with your opponent.
feel like this is the major reason so many people play larger gamemodes, for the fun and not for the stress. thats awesome tbh but then i need to question if we should balance for smaller gamemodes, since most of it (my thesis not a fact) plays it for fun were balance is not that important. on the other hand 1v1 is much more about winning were balance plays a way bigger role.
Well, maybe we like CoH2 for different aspects of game.
I don't like 1v1 for all this "capping" thing. It feels like you are playing tag, not fighting in a war.
4v4 is more deadly, when you're flanking with all your force applied to one overextended enemy group.
It is more dense when you quickly switch flanks and crush opponents in 2v3 battle.
It is more diverse in terms of commander/tech choice (although, it may be so because of amplitude of matchmaking).
Also I should say that you encounter blobbing and spamfest even in 1v1 (just watch any cpt.SPrice game )
Experienced player will counter your spam easily will be it 1v1 or 4v4.
yep i guess we just like different styles, maybe ill enjoy larger gamemodes someday ( maybe when im high as fuck and dont wanna play 1v1 because to much stress, gonna try it out)
Livestreams
9 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.606219.735+1
- 4.1109614.644+10
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, KingdbEllis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM