The game is too damn FAST
10 Dec 2015, 03:40 AM
#21
Posts: 230
Permanently BannedPlay less 4v4
10 Dec 2015, 03:43 AM
#22
Posts: 2561
For 200mp, the entire team gets +3 fuel. That's 12 fuel more for the whole team per tic.
I brought this up in other posts prior, The caches are not an issue for me as everyone built is essentially a unit not on the field and you should be able to punish them with map presence. The massive MP float allowing people to field large armies and build caches does stack this issue though. Remove the massive MP float and less caches will be built because like 1v1 you will feel the lack of unit presence and loose map control.
Relic needs to reduce income stacking, reduce team auras (Target weakness should be left as is and the like), fix pop cap issues and a few minor adjustments around 1v1 balance and relic will be most the way there to giving us the game we paid for after all this time.
And given that it's extremely hard to attack these caches it isn't odd to see players set up around 4 of these early on. That's 48 fuel worth of tanks and teching every few seconds.
That is a lot of fuel, all for the cost of what is basically a single engineer for each player. That is no where near an exploitable advantage on the scale of a 4v4. You wouldn't even notice your opponents had any less troops.
I've played a lot of 4v4s, and I can tell you that a lot of them are simply decided by which side has the most fuel caches.
10 Dec 2015, 04:13 AM
#23
Posts: 199
For 200mp, the entire team gets +3 fuel. That's 12 fuel more for the whole team per tic.
And given that it's extremely hard to attack these caches it isn't odd to see players set up around 4 of these early on. That's 48 fuel worth of tanks and teching every few seconds.
That is a lot of fuel, all for the cost of what is basically a single engineer for each player. That is no where near an exploitable advantage on the scale of a 4v4. You wouldn't even notice your opponents had any less troops.
I've played a lot of 4v4s, and I can tell you that a lot of them are simply decided by which side has the most fuel caches.
Fair point, in the case of stacking the cases I think that is a pretty good solution. In the case of OKW not benefiting from it and not being able to build their own wouldn't be a bad thing with the 100% fuel/ammo income they currently receive and they still get the upgrade Panther/P4 then what the Ostheer get anyway.
Still think that the multi team auras and pop cap issues need to be fixed at the same time.
10 Dec 2015, 08:15 AM
#24
Posts: 112
I have the filling that after december patch the game is too fast. There is no early-mid game, 2-3 skirmishes, and then suddenly tanks apear on the battlefield... I dont think that is a good idea Relic. The game was much more fun to play. Now is such a pro game..is not fun anymore. 3v3 and 4v4 are totally broken...just a tank slaughter from the beginning to the end...It's so sad...
Maybe start with 50% fuel income speed, then over 10 minutes exponentially increase fuel income rate to reach 100%.
I also wish the early game could last maybe 5 mins, rather than 2 mins.
10 Dec 2015, 08:45 AM
#25
Posts: 1384
There should be a reduction in resource income in the higher game modes to bring the pacing back to similar to the 1v1 modes.
The way Dawn of War 2 handled it was by reducing the amount of resources each point gave by the game mode. In 1v1 a requisition point was +15 and matured to +30, in 3v3 it was +5 and matured to +10 in 3v3. Power income was similarly divided by the number of players. (Requisition was basically manpower, the reason you got way less in team games was because you didn't have to build as many power generators)
I'm baffled that this system isn't in the game, to be honest. Especially since they go out of their way to ensure that there's always 8/10 strat points, 2 muni and 2 fuel points on almost every map. Capping the map faster due to more players also increases early game income significantly.
Caches are also a less risky investment due to the larger map size. (Although I'd imagine that a player who made a point of hunting cache's would be a huge boon to their team.)
I always kind of considered the entire purpose of 3v3/4v4 to let people live out their fantasies of large tank battles though. 2v2 I don't really notice much of a difference outside of the natural benefits of larger maps.
10 Dec 2015, 08:48 AM
#26
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The way Dawn of War 2 handled it was by reducing the amount of resources each point gave by the game mode. In 1v1 a requisition point was +15 and matured to +30, in 3v3 it was +5 and matured to +10 in 3v3. Power income was similarly divided by the number of players.
I'm baffled that this system isn't in the game, to be honest. Especially since they go out of their way to ensure that there's always 8/10 strat points, 2 muni and 2 fuel points on almost every map. Capping the map faster due to more players also increases early game income significantly.
Exactly.
DoW2 handled resource inflation of team games in almost a perfect way, there were more power farms, but they gave less power(DoW2 fuel equivalent) and still players had to invest equally(adding gens for more power).
I was kind of surprised it wasn't ported over for 3s and 4s here.
10 Dec 2015, 13:07 PM
#27
Posts: 199
The way Dawn of War 2 handled it was by reducing the amount of resources each point gave by the game mode. In 1v1 a requisition point was +15 and matured to +30, in 3v3 it was +5 and matured to +10 in 3v3. Power income was similarly divided by the number of players. (Requisition was basically manpower, the reason you got way less in team games was because you didn't have to build as many power generators)
I'm baffled that this system isn't in the game, to be honest. Especially since they go out of their way to ensure that there's always 8/10 strat points, 2 muni and 2 fuel points on almost every map. Capping the map faster due to more players also increases early game income significantly.
Caches are also a less risky investment due to the larger map size. (Although I'd imagine that a player who made a point of hunting cache's would be a huge boon to their team.)
I always kind of considered the entire purpose of 3v3/4v4 to let people live out their fantasies of large tank battles though. 2v2 I don't really notice much of a difference outside of the natural benefits of larger maps.
Agreed it seems like an oversight by relic in maybe about what the fans want. Might make for an interesting poll.
They should of gone with the same here as DoW2. I think the main reason people play 3v3, 4v4 is for two reasons. 1) Friends online at the time who play (That is my main reason for the mode I am playing) 2) is sometimes people don't want the pressure of having it all hinge on them which is fair enough and like the idea of back up coming to bail them out. Nothing wrong with that as this is a game and should be able to be enjoyed by more then pro players.
The increased income effects the pacing of the light vehicle window to operate too greatly screwing over the intended pacing. Light vehicles do not have the time to shine or impact the game. Mediums are only a couple minutes behind so why would you bother.
Also the munition stacks lead to mass shreks/bars/piat/zook hordes.
I think a lot of larger game sized mode players would enjoy the opportunity to enjoy the strategy and pacing of a 1v1 but with friends with them.
10 Dec 2015, 15:57 PM
#28
Posts: 15
As someone who really only plays ones, beause I hate the blobbing tactics in large team games, I believe you guys are on to something here. It would be awesome to be able to play team games that are similarly paced to ones. Having less resources won't effect game speed either since vps are goin to be capped regardless.
Okw is always going to be a problem as long as they are designed to not have their own caches, but continue to benefit from team mate caches. Look at the last two patches for example. Before the December patch they weren't playable in ones, but still seemed relatively common in team games. They are OP overall now, but the gap between OKW and the rest of the factions in ones is far less than the gap between OKW and the other factions in team games. The obvious reason is because of resource sharing. Relic needs to understand this before they can expect to have reasonable balance between factions in all game modes.
Okw is always going to be a problem as long as they are designed to not have their own caches, but continue to benefit from team mate caches. Look at the last two patches for example. Before the December patch they weren't playable in ones, but still seemed relatively common in team games. They are OP overall now, but the gap between OKW and the rest of the factions in ones is far less than the gap between OKW and the other factions in team games. The obvious reason is because of resource sharing. Relic needs to understand this before they can expect to have reasonable balance between factions in all game modes.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
13 | |||||
846 | |||||
34 | |||||
19 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.596215.735+11
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1233
Board Info
700 users are online:
700 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49092
Welcome our newest member, dreilandechode
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, dreilandechode
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM