Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind

Jump back to quoted post13 Apr 2017, 23:06 PMvoltardark

Thank for you comments, but the team formats are most popular.
And 4vs4 is the still most popular by far.

Jump back to quoted post13 Apr 2017, 20:52 PMGarrett

Those two game modes are lost anyways, there are structural flaws that will never allow decent balance. The problems are:

1) maps are too large, meaning infantry play usually becomes obsolete at some point, it encourages blobbing and factions with a forward retreat point have a massive advantage in terms of infantry play

2) too many units on the field, which means that it is really hard to keep track of what's happening. With more players/units, unit preservation gets way harder. Also, more units = more cheese.

3) resource income is totally broken, gaining like 50 fuel or 70 ammo per minute leads to spam of tanks (which makes infantry obsolete) and call-in arty/loiters. In those categories the axis usually have an advantage, when one side brings elefants/JTs plus stuka bombs en masse, while the other side has to rely on comet spam and cancer cover.

Imo these points lead to difficulties in balancing those game modes. These modes should be seen "for fun" when you play with friends. I dont understand why people would play those modes on their own, maybe because they like those huge battles of attrition, dont know.

Jump back to quoted post15 Apr 2017, 14:08 PMGarrett

According to CoH2 charts they are not within the top 250, only when you go to lower tier players you find this mode more often played. But thats why it is seen as a noob mode I guess.

Jump back to quoted post16 Apr 2017, 18:38 PMElSlayer

If I understand these charts correctly:

1) You can't compare rank of players BETWEEN modes, because those numbers show rank in PARTICULAR mode.
You can't say that there are more top 250 players in one mode than another. There are exactly 250 top players in each mode.

2)
1v1 game is played by 2 players.
4v4 game - by 8 players.

Current numbers for games where 1-250 ranked players have participated:
8059 1v1 games = 16118 players.
7234 4v4 games = 57872 players.

Jump back to quoted post16 Apr 2017, 22:52 PMVaz

I think the point about map resources in 4v4 is a very valid concern. A very easy way to balance things out would certainly be to rework all of the larger team maps and remove 1/3 - 1/2 of the overall points.

Maps like Montargis should have 1 fuel point and 1 ammo point, instead of 2 each like they do now. I think the 1/4 cache is also a really good idea, but I would still have it increase the resources for the team, just it would increase by 1/4. With less resources we would see a lot less vehicles and micro would be more important.

Jump back to quoted post16 Apr 2017, 23:23 PMArray

A problem with all the resource ideas is that games would probably go on longer and longer. Vehicles help speed up action on the large maps. Getting 8 people to stick around for 60 - 120 minutes is problematic

Jump back to quoted post16 Apr 2017, 23:23 PMArray

A problem with all the resource ideas is that games would probably go on longer and longer. Vehicles help speed up action on the large maps. Getting 8 people to stick around for 60 - 120 minutes is problematic

Jump back to quoted post15 Apr 2017, 14:43 PMXutryn_X7

I play 3vs3 and 4vs4 because compared to 1vs1 and 2vs2, it matters more the strategy than the tactics.Sure in smaller mode you can flank more, but you can also lose if you just don't pay attention to a vet 3 grens,rifleman squad.I like tactics but if i really want only tactics i would play Battlefield.I play bigger game for the strategy cause you need to know what to expect,build and so one,if you don't build what you need at that right moment,then you lose.Also even if the games are more trench warfare, it let you think where you can flank,if is ok to lose 2 panthers to 2-3 jackons or firefly +some anti tanks.It's all about logic and a great plan,rather than just move some units and expect that guy to don't pay attention