Login

russian armor

4v4 can't be balanced, they said

10 Nov 2015, 14:30 PM
#81
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



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.


+1, especially the part about 1 player camping, while the other 3 get pounded 4v3 on the other two points.



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.


When I said unbalance, I meant greatly skewing the win rate. The JT and Elefant are still OP but there is a similar amount of cheese available to allies now to deal with them (also, they're really expensive so they should be a little OP). A year ago, players could just park a couple Elefants/JT's on two of the vp's and win in a 4v4.

The ISU is really bad for the cost now. The shell trajectory makes it hit almost nothing unless it is firing downhill and the AP shell doesn't reliably penetrate anything heavier than a Kubelwagen.

10 Nov 2015, 17:43 PM
#83
avatar of Kobunite
Patrion 15

Posts: 615

Keep it clean, and show basic common courtesy please.

courtesy
ˈkəːtɪsi/

noun: courtesy; plural noun: courtesies

1. the showing of politeness in one's attitude and behaviour towards others.
"he treated the players with courtesy and good humour"
10 Nov 2015, 17:52 PM
#84
avatar of Gdot

Posts: 1166 | 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




You literally do not have a single game played in 4v4AT. What makes you an expert on this topic?

If you had any experience in 4v4AT you would know arty is rarely built.

source: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/viewBoard/0/steamid/76561198000494642

Reposted because of political correctness.

You've spent 3 days arguing with people about 4v4AT and you never even played a single game. This is more frustrating than your opinion.
10 Nov 2015, 18:01 PM
#85
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2015, 17:52 PMGdot




You literally do not have a single game played in 4v4AT. What makes you an expert on this topic?

If you had any experience in 4v4AT you would know arty is rarely built.

source: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/viewBoard/0/steamid/76561198000494642

Reposted because of political correctness.

You've spent 3 days arguing with people about 4v4AT and you never even played a single game. This is more frustrating than your opinion.

Was a long time ago and autoMatch refused to find a game so we Decided to join custom games. We only played 2-3 games True, but they felt like vcoh 4v4 so we stopped playing this game mode because we already disliked it back then.. ill give it a try in random 4v4 this evening just for you ok?

Edit: not like i ever claimed to be an expert and Thanks god this forum is there to discuss things.
10 Nov 2015, 18:12 PM
#86
avatar of Gdot

Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1


Was a long time ago and autoMatch refused to find a game so we Decided to join custom games. We only played 2-3 games True, but they felt like vcoh 4v4 so we stopped playing this game mode because we already disliked it back then.. ill give it a try in random 4v4 this evening just for you ok?

Edit: not like i ever claimed to be an expert and Thanks god this forum is there to discuss things.


Discuss things? Sounds like you're passing them off as fact. Here is a quick recap of comments you made on this topic without having a single game in 4v4AT.

"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."

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

"there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests."


"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"

"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"


This all coming from someone 'discussing' 4v4 with 0 games played.
10 Nov 2015, 18:21 PM
#87
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2015, 04:14 AMGrumpy
All four game sizes can be fun (Yes, there is a fourth mode called 3v3 that Relic cleverly hid between the 2v2 and 4v4 modes).


I'm prepared to be proven wrong but I don't think there is much of a unique "3v3 community" whose balance concerns are different to 4v4.

Where 3v3 has unique issues it is with map choice, the number of vetoes and being put on 4v4 maps with one player missing
10 Nov 2015, 18:26 PM
#88
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2015, 18:12 PMGdot


Discuss things? Sounds like you're passing them off as fact. Here is a quick recap of comments you made on this topic without having a single game in 4v4AT.

"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."

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

"there is no strategy diverstiy in which way you cap and evreything is pretty static which encourages arty spamfests."


"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"

"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"


This all coming from someone 'discussing' 4v4 with 0 games played.


Ill put a "i think" at the Start of every sentence. Ive learned to discuss this way, someone states something and the other can freely correct it, add something or agree with it without needIng to say "i think" everytime.

Oh btw I think there are many people here who dont even play the game on a regular Basis, can you tell them gently to stop comment on balancing issues too?(:
10 Nov 2015, 23:25 PM
#89
avatar of hannibalbarcajr

Posts: 503



I'm prepared to be proven wrong but I don't think there is much of a unique "3v3 community" whose balance concerns are different to 4v4.

Where 3v3 has unique issues it is with map choice, the number of vetoes and being put on 4v4 maps with one player missing

exactly. 3v3 could be awesome since it is less of a cluster than 4s but more relaxing/easy going than intense 1's and 2's. The problem as many have stated is the maps....almost all maps for 3v3 are actually meant for 4v4 and shoehorned into 3v3 which is so dumb. they even did it to Red Ball Express which was my favorite vCOH 3v3 map. Now it is 3v3 and 4v4. Maybe some map makers can create some great 3v3 maps or even re-do some vCOH maps but I doubt there will be many/any takers.
11 Nov 2015, 02:05 AM
#90
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



I'm prepared to be proven wrong but I don't think there is much of a unique "3v3 community" whose balance concerns are different to 4v4.

Where 3v3 has unique issues it is with map choice, the number of vetoes and being put on 4v4 maps with one player missing


You didn't realize that I was making a joke about the number of 3v3's played? Look at the actual numbers on Charts & Statistics, not the size of the bars.
11 Nov 2015, 16:25 PM
#91
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

They need to remove a lot of 4v4 maps in the 3v3 pool
11 Nov 2015, 16:36 PM
#92
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

A 4v4AT vs 4v4AT game with both teams having communications is just as intense as a 1v1 or 2v2. I would even like to say it's more intense because there are a shit load of more tanks and infantry on the field. Some of you think your able to turtle or be carried by your other team mates, in reality, when a high skilled game is going on that will cost you the game. Yea your able to fuck up more in 4v4, but not that much more.


The problem is that most times my AT playes, we play complete noobs who are randoms who has no communication and no chance. Most games are 10 min long. So then the other team comes on the fourms and claim OP. 4v4 is fun, especially when you have more diverse strategys going on, more diversity of units, and most of all communication between your friends. No one has the right to say 4v4 doesn't take skill, or doesn't deserved to be in the balance section. But if you are regarding balance it would be best to state that it is for 4v4. I'm hungover so I hope this made sense.
11 Nov 2015, 17:39 PM
#93
avatar of Gdot

Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1



Ill put a "i think" at the Start of every sentence. Ive learned to discuss this way, someone states something and the other can freely correct it, add something or agree with it without needIng to say "i think" everytime.

Oh btw I think there are many people here who dont even play the game on a regular Basis, can you tell them gently to stop comment on balancing issues too?(:


'I think' doesn't even do it justice.

Maybe "although I've never played a single game in this game mode it seems like"
or
"I have no experience in this mode but I think"
or
Play the game mode before you go off the rocker commenting on it.


You're literally the only one on this thread criticizing 4v4 with 0 games played in 4v4/AT. Not sure who the 'many' others you are referring to.

Yes I will tell them; its forum warriors like you that make in incredibly difficult to balance the game when you constantly are commenting on balance issues and the state of the game when you haven't even played a single game. So yeah, fuck off.
11 Nov 2015, 17:52 PM
#94
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Let's bring this back to topic, whatever the topic was originally. Smack talking each other is something you can do in PM, but there are people reading this thread and we sort of want to get down to the nitty gritty of what is being discussed.

So please, keep it clean, civil and readable.
11 Nov 2015, 17:56 PM
#95
avatar of Gdot

Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Nov 2015, 17:52 PMSwift
Let's bring this back to topic, whatever the topic was originally. Smack talking each other is something you can do in PM, but there are people reading this thread and we sort of want to get down to the nitty gritty of what is being discussed.

So please, keep it clean, civil and readable.


Yes please; and before you comment on balance and the state of a game mode, please make sure you have some experience in it. Thanks
11 Nov 2015, 18:44 PM
#96
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

G.dot is right, and unfortunately it takes harsh language and the truth to get it across little kids or immature adults
11 Nov 2015, 20:42 PM
#97
avatar of BlackHooligan

Posts: 150

what the f.uck it means when someone has +20 streak and he is position 0????? WTF?
11 Nov 2015, 20:53 PM
#98
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384

Some of you think your able to turtle or be carried by your other team mates, in reality, when a high skilled game is going on that will cost you the game. Yea your able to fuck up more in 4v4, but not that much more.


In every single RTS I have ever played, team games always allow for more fast teching strategies. And the more players in the game, the safer it is to have one player simply tech as fast as possible for higher tier units.

Considering how CoH2 is already a very forgiving game even in 1v1, I don't believe for a second that you can't be carried by your team here while you wait for a heavy tank or some shit like that. If anything, such a thing will work better in high level play because your teammates are more competent.

Every 4v4 player I've ever seen in 1v1 simply blobs up their infantry with upgrades. It has been pretty easy to punish this in a 1v1 environment, so I'm baffled that 4v4 players aren't able to do it to each other.

11 Nov 2015, 21:06 PM
#99
avatar of BlackHooligan

Posts: 150

but usually in 4v4 u come up against 2 army blobs not just one.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

817 users are online: 817 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM