Login

russian armor

[Relic][3v3+] Some Love When?

29 Dec 2015, 04:46 AM
#21
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2015, 19:16 PMpigsoup
I mainly play 3v3+ with 2v2 trailing closely behind. I don't play 1v1. I also enjoy watching casts and because most casts are 1v1, I mainly watch 1v1 casts.

I can help but notice various improvements on maps like Langraskya, Kholodny, Kharkov, Minsk and I am pretty sure I am missing more. I also cannot help but notice some serious attention to balance issues that afflict anything but 3v3+.

With ESL 1v1 tourney bestowed upon us, my question is this:

When can 3v3+ players expect some love? no map fixes, which is unbelievably easy to implement is nowhere to be seen and obviously other glaring issues.

When should I start to expect something from you Relic in regards to 3v3+?


Maps are one of the bigger issues, with ones like Lazur and Lanserath (sp?) being very asymmetric. Other maps like General Mud favor axis because of slowed movement and long sight lines favoring generally longer range units of the axis. Also, the lack of a forward retreat point for Soviets really handicaps them on maps like this.

However, there are other problems that affect 3v3+ just as much. Compare OKW's Breakthrough with American Airborne. Pathfinders are something like 8 or 9 popcap for a unit that even at vet 3 is still pretty wipe-able and cost 37mp per model to reinforce. PF's cost 25 to reinforce and are quite good at vet 5, plus they give excellent spotting for the JT's. Throw another JT or an Elefant into the mix and it pretty much shuts down allied mediums. The prevalence of long sight units (OST sniper, 222, 222 with scope, anything else with scope, JLI, PF) mean that on some maps, Axis usually fires first, and firing first most often wins engagements when the units are relatively balanced. Stated another way, Jacksons firing first usually own mediums, while Jacksons firing second are cannon fodder.

Also, units like the JT and Ele have much more of an effect on 3v3+ than they do on 1v1's. I play about the same number of 1's lately as I do 3v3+ and rarely see either of them. In order to support either of those, you probably need to keep another 30 pop cap near them, which means most of your force is in a big, slow moving group. It might work on some maps but not that many.

I hope that relic doesn't buff British armor back to what it was on release. The Crocodile was one of the most broken units ever. Some of the things that I think would help would be: a forward retreat point for Soviets, a little buff for UKF indirect (without making it OP), balance both IR pathfinders and regular pathfinders to be more equal to JLI's or PF's (and fix other abilities in Recon commander and Airborne Commander).
29 Dec 2015, 07:23 AM
#22
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Dec 2015, 03:40 AMNapalm
Caches aren't the only thing that needs to be looked at.

- Map design, must move away from narrow channels
Honestly less of a problem then people make it out to be. Lots of 3v3+ maps have just about as much room to manuever as any 2v2. They'll never be 1v1 spacious because there isn't really enough space to make that work. Though maps could definetly benifit from being more "wide" and less "long".
- Volks with Shreks
Given the recent announcement, It's pretty obvious they won't be doing anything about this for months. so there really isn't much we can accomplish here for now.
- Superior Axis armor*
Only problems are the heavy TDs. Definitely need to be more vulnerable to counters, but caches definitely make them easier to get then they should be.
- Halo bonus units
They need to only effect the players that use them. Simple as that.

Most of these things wouldn't really effect 1v1 in the slightest. I have no idea why some people always make fun of 3v3+ balance issues, when fixing them probably wont effect 1v1 in the slightest.
29 Dec 2015, 10:30 AM
#23
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Dec 2015, 02:02 AMJadame!

Fuel caches benefit allies more than axis for simple reason if allies manage to pressure and bleed their enemy caches is overall best thing to invest their mp lead into.


Yeah but normally Allies are bleeding MP because Axis players prefer to keep one fuel secure and at least one VP to survive the aggressive early game.
So yes they have the time/ ressources to build caches... thanksfully OKW cant build caches (floating MP with OKW is incredible easy).

I think a price increase for caches would be perfect (400MP, more health, ammo and fuel income, but less of each than a normal one)

The next problem popcap. Especially important for Soviets (USF can popcap abuse, its a feature guys :facepalm: ). Axis heavy tanks should need more cap/ the general pop cap limit should be higher. At some point of the game all your opponents will have heavy tanks and you need such a great mass of tanks as Allies to counter those tanks which is nearly impossible.
On pudding 17 it is impossible to flank... one flank is secured by a Volks blob the other flank by a Panzergrenadierblob... and yeah normally one Teller will lock down a whole flank and can deny every big push.

The early - mid game is actually pretty balanced in 4v4s but at the end Axis will normally have a late game advantage (Vet5, Heavy tanks).

I dont think Relic wants do put some love in 4v4s but well keep dreaming guys.
I would love to see some map improvements (would be awesome if Relic could grab a bunch of good players and go through the map list with them... wouldnt cost them that much time actually)

Around 6-7k are playing coh2 each day. I guess 50-60% are playing 4v4, 3v3, 4v4AT, 3v3 AT would love to see some charts what ppl are actually playing all the time.

Maybe they should remove 3v3 and 4v4 random? I had really bad experiences with that... or at least add some kind of leaving penalty to make it a bit more enjoyable... dont match them with AT Teams because that will usally end in a very short game (except the game doesnt crash for someone :brad: ).

The reconnect option is definitely needed... thats a point I really want to see in the near future, pls.

:hansGG:
29 Dec 2015, 11:07 AM
#24
avatar of Aladdin

Posts: 959

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2015, 19:16 PMpigsoup
I mainly play 3v3+ with 2v2 trailing closely behind. I don't play 1v1. I also enjoy watching casts and because most casts are 1v1, I mainly watch 1v1 casts.

I can help but notice various improvements on maps like Langraskya, Kholodny, Kharkov, Minsk and I am pretty sure I am missing more. I also cannot help but notice some serious attention to balance issues that afflict anything but 3v3+.

With ESL 1v1 tourney bestowed upon us, my question is this:

When can 3v3+ players expect some love? no map fixes, which is unbelievably easy to implement is nowhere to be seen and obviously other glaring issues.

When should I start to expect something from you Relic in regards to 3v3+?


I think one of the things we could do is to bring up the unbalance issues of the maps in automatch pool for Relic, and hope they fix them. There are a lot at the moment, tbh
29 Dec 2015, 13:52 PM
#25
avatar of NorthWeapon
Donator 11

Posts: 615

The first thing that needs to be done in the team games is take a look at the maps.

Currently each point gives the same amount of resources as 1v1 and the amount of points to cap for a team game map is the same.

With more players the map can be capped a lot faster, leading to higher income in the early game in team games than in 1v1s.

What would help if the resources gained from each point was lowered in team games but also increase the amount of capture zones.

Then they could look at map flow, i.e. how easy is it to execute flanks, too many choke points, vehicle pathing etc.

29 Dec 2015, 14:34 PM
#26
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1

Do not screw up the 1v1 2v2 balance for the sake of 3v3 4v4 games whatever you do.
29 Dec 2015, 16:46 PM
#27
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640

I created a google spreadsheet according to this topic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Uck1ZmE_b0xIM7Kbf9qzTfs8huKqay71ytluevn0wM/edit?usp=sharing

The map pool definitely needs a rework so we should work on it and send Ill send it to Relic next week.

We can also discuss some needed changes there, map reworks, maps which should be added to the game (from steam workshop)...

Everyone who wants to support that little operation can send me his gmail address via PM and Ill add him to the spreedsheet.

Feel free to leave your opinion on the current state as a comment.
Thanks!

Lets make 3v3+ games more enjoyable
29 Dec 2015, 17:22 PM
#28
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Dec 2015, 16:46 PMSwonVIP
I created a google spreadsheet according to this topic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Uck1ZmE_b0xIM7Kbf9qzTfs8huKqay71ytluevn0wM/edit?usp=sharing

The map pool definitely needs a rework so we should work on it and send Ill send it to Relic next week.

We can also discuss some needed changes there, map reworks, maps which should be added to the game (from steam workshop)...

Everyone who wants to support that little operation can send me his gmail address via PM and Ill add him to the spreedsheet.

Feel free to leave your opinion on the current state as a comment.
Thanks!

Lets make 3v3+ games more enjoyable


A lot of maps are described as too big for 3vs3, such as General Mud, Steppe or LaGleize. I personally find those maps ideal for 3v3. They have changing battlegrounds, require teamplay and capping power is still relevant.
29 Dec 2015, 18:09 PM
#29
avatar of devlish
Patrion 14

Posts: 246

How about 3v3 mode to be a standalone Company of Heroes 3 ?:loco: :bananadance::banana::hyper::romeoHype::sibHyena:
29 Dec 2015, 18:53 PM
#30
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



A lot of maps are described as too big for 3vs3, such as General Mud, Steppe or LaGleize. I personally find those maps ideal for 3v3. They have changing battlegrounds, require teamplay and capping power is still relevant.


me too.
29 Dec 2015, 18:59 PM
#31
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Dec 2015, 10:30 AMSwonVIP


I dont think Relic wants do put some love in 4v4s but well keep dreaming guys.
I would love to see some map improvements (would be awesome if Relic could grab a bunch of good players and go through the map list with them... wouldnt cost them that much time actually)

Around 6-7k are playing coh2 each day. I guess 50-60% are playing 4v4, 3v3, 4v4AT, 3v3 AT would love to see some charts what ppl are actually playing all the time.


:hansGG:


Relic stated this before heading out on holidays. I remain hopeful but I'm not banking on anything right now.

[Relic blog] Game Balance: The State of 1v1 for ESL


Once the team feels that the state of 1v1 is as balanced as it needs to be to run a fair ESL tournament series, efforts will then be focused on ensuring team games fall within the same acceptable margins as well.

Source : http://www.companyofheroes.com/blog/2015/12/23/game-balance-the-state-of-1v1-for-esl


As per coh2chart.com, 3,659 4v4's vs 2,325 1v1's played over a week. The sample size is limited to the top 151 players though, I'd like to see a larger sample size.
29 Dec 2015, 22:27 PM
#32
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640



A lot of maps are described as too big for 3vs3, such as General Mud, Steppe or LaGleize. I personally find those maps ideal for 3v3. They have changing battlegrounds, require teamplay and capping power is still relevant.


yeah I will put General Mud back in again.
thanks.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Dec 2015, 18:59 PMNapalm


Relic stated this before heading out on holidays. I remain hopeful but I'm not banking on anything right now.

Really? Must have missed it... Ive only seen that Top500 players thing...
30 Dec 2015, 07:45 AM
#33
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

As per coh2chart.com, 3,659 4v4's vs 2,325 1v1's played over a week. The sample size is limited to the top 151 players though, I'd like to see a larger sample size.

It's a very safe assumption that as skill goes down, preference for 3v3+ goes up. Very likely the numbers outside the top 151 players are even more skewed in favor of big team games.

I think the changes have to be sort of global, mode specific, not changes to individual unit performance based on what mode you're using them in. Not only will this sort of balancing be very challenging for Relic, but it'll be difficult for players to grasp and keep track of as well.

I do think the economy and the caches are the place to start. Caches should just not exist in 3v3 and 4v4--that is a simple change that will slow the game down, reduce spam, and be easy to understand for players. I also think a global resource penalty (start at say, 15% less EVERYTHING in 4v4, 10% less in 3v3) is another idea. This will scale down the craziness of 4v4 games, hopefully create more room on the maps, and allow gameplay to closer resemble what we see in 1v1.

Of course any significant change would require intensive internal and community testing (ideally more than the OKW Revamp got). But as it stands, the Axis 4v4 win rate clearly falls "outside an acceptable margin" or whatever terminology Relic uses, and something needs to be done about it.
30 Dec 2015, 07:52 AM
#34
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2015, 07:45 AMLuGer33


[...]

I also think a global resource penalty (start at say, 15% less EVERYTHING in 4v4, 10% less in 3v3) is another idea. This will scale down the craziness of 4v4 games, hopefully create more room on the maps, and allow gameplay to closer resemble what we see in 1v1.


What if I (and I'm sure that many other players too) like 4v4 for its craziness?

30 Dec 2015, 08:22 AM
#35
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174



What if I (and I'm sure that many other players too) like 4v4 for its craziness?


I'm a strong believer in 4v4 craziness.

But c'mon. If we consider ways to make 4v4 more closely resemble 1v1, at least with respect to things like losing tanks and squads having a big impact on the game, I think most would agree that will result in better gameplay than a lot of the spam we see now.

Consider that you'll still have 8 players and 4x the craziness of a 1v1, just not the level we have now due to crazy inflated resource income.
30 Dec 2015, 08:36 AM
#36
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2015, 08:22 AMLuGer33

I'm a strong believer in 4v4 craziness.

But c'mon. If we consider ways to make 4v4 more closely resemble 1v1, at least with respect to things like losing tanks and squads having a big impact on the game, I think most would agree that will result in better gameplay than a lot of the spam we see now.

Consider that you'll still have 8 players and 4x the craziness of a 1v1, just not the level we have now due to crazy inflated resource income.


with more casual players generally attracted to bigger game modes (a logic i pulled out of my ass but i think it make sense) and the fact that relic made those modes noncompetitive goes around in a vicious circle. if the mode was actually competitive, oh man, it is better to stop dreaming while i still no it is just a dream...
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

864 users are online: 1 member and 863 guests
Rosbone
1 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