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

The game could be balanced without breaking 1vs1 for sure. Plz stop saying it'cant.

Don't put words in my mouth, at no point did I say the game can't be balanced in larger formats. Only that is never has been and likely never will be.

In order for things to improve, Relic would need to dedicate more resources to the games development; I just cant see them doing that to a product that is either at or nearing the end of its life cycle.

People need to really just accept it is the way it is and likely wont change in any major way in order to start having fun again. If you want to take the game seriously you should compete in lower formats where the focus of the balance has generally been.

The community team are doing well as far as I am concerned and could have some impact here in the long term but again they are limited by Relic.

Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 04:51 AMCafo

AMCafo:
You dont need 5 t-34s to kill a panther, ever heard of an su-85 tank destroyer?

+10000
I too am calling L2P here OP.

I would be nice if you read my post actually before calling out a lazy L2P. May I quote myself?

...and Soviets just perish unless someone else of the team pulls of some good teamwork and brings good infantry for them so that they just spam SU85 plus mines/demos like there is no tomorrow.

Apart from this there are so many good ideas around here, that would help in 3v3/4vs4 without screwing game balance in 1vs1. Some around here seem to think playerbase of 3vs3/4vs4 is not important. I personally don't think Relic should be so careless about bigger game modes. Our gaming group for example plays a lot of 2vs2 ans some 1vs1 too, although we play the big battles more than 50% of our time. If we change to Steel Division/Sudden Strike 4 because of the better balance at bigger scale we won't come back here for 2vs2/1vs1. And so other players like us will move too. Player base and matchmaking will suffer.

Something I never understood is the fact that you get way more ressources in team games as the maps are bigger.

In vCoH you had small, medium and large fuel and ammunition points, in CoH2 there are only one size while every neutral point gives fuel and mun as well.

On bigger maps in vCoH there were a lot of small points, so that the ressources could be easily balanced. Also there were a lot of neutral points that gave nothing but a tiny amount of MP. In CoH2 the bigger maps have more neutral sectors which allow you to have up to 30 fuel per minute without even holding a single fuel sector.

In vCoH you had small, medium and large fuel and ammunition points, in CoH2 there are only one size while every neutral point gives fuel and mun as well.

On bigger maps in vCoH there were a lot of small points, so that the ressources could be easily balanced. Also there were a lot of neutral points that gave nothing but a tiny amount of MP. In CoH2 the bigger maps have more neutral sectors which allow you to have up to 30 fuel per minute without even holding a single fuel sector.

Added comparison of my favorite 4v4 map from vCoH and CoH 2. In vCoH this map was mainly fine, maybe the best 4v4 map in comparison with hochwald gap. But in CoH 2, because of new locations of points, it plays awful for bottom side



And this beatiful quality of minimaps in vCoH

Yes you are right, it's the case in 99% percent of the games.
usually the more people there are playing on a map, the bigger the map is.

But RELIC in its infinite wisdom decided to make very narrow map for team games, especially 4v4.
-> it make sector lockdown with MG, blob and artillery spam the only way to win.

exemple : a Jadgtiger in 1v1 is not considered as OP, most people wouldn't even get it because it can be flanked easily and it's a lot of micro needed to keep it safe.

But on a 4v4, flanking is almost impossible so a jadgtiger can't be beaten from the front by common units and become OP.


That's another reason why you will never ever see static artillery in 1v1 when it's common in team games.

Hi,

On all maps the option to flank is there. I agree that on some closed off ones its harder but still possible. This however is related to map design and not unit balancing.

Your static artillery example doesn't relate to balance as the enemy can also build a static artillery or similar unit as well.

With the Jagdtiger there are more allies and more options available just as there are for the enemy to watch flanks. Players are added at a 1-1 ratio so I can't see this as a balance issue.

NOT REALLY.

Some history.
-USF release completely OP and specially broken against OH, but really UP on 3v3+ with it's paper tanks (on 2v2 it was more of a, let's finish the game as fast as possible with LT into Sherman rushes).
-OKW release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-UKF release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-Sniper did shine/op on 1v1 but not so much on 2v2 and kinda a joke on 3v3+
-Wunderwaffe units which are hard to support on 1v1 are no brainers on 2v2+.


While those are more important issues, resource inflation and specially volume of units on field per size of map and strategic points is still a problem.

1-You cap 3x/4x times faster the map which means the transition to early lights or even mediums is done faster.
2-Caches, while been a detrimental for the one building it, benefit the whole team. Been able to field 1 less unit on 1v1 can be a risk. When you have 4x the amount of units on map, that single 200mp investment isn't as risky.
3-If you have the same amount of pop as the lower modes, but equal amount of pop, then it's obvious that you are gonna end up with "spam/blob" a bottleneck of units fighting for the same points. Which makes AOE onmap/offmap shine.

Note: what i mentioned can't be changed most probably (been what you mentioned the only things which can be changed in favour of the mode).
Basically, i'm saying those are real issues, not myths, but those are part of what makes 3v3+ appealing for some people (Not having to bother with capping, huge amount of units on map).

If it was mine decision, i would had test early on, having 3v3 and 4v4 have less pop (also less mp gain) to accommodate the players/volume of units into the map.

Hi there,
The USF have a stronger early and mid game which is the faction design. The USF also have some excellent late AT options such as the m36 and at gun.

Snipers will be devestating in all game modes if used correctly.

These have nothing to do with increased players added at a 1-1 ratio.

Honestly guys we are looking down the wrong pipe here , it has nothing to do with the ammount of players but individual units and abilities that are in dire need of fixing.

Hi there,
The USF have a stronger early and mid game which is the faction design. The USF also have some excellent late AT options such as the m36 and at gun.

Snipers will be devestating in all game modes if used correctly.

These have nothing to do with increased players added at a 1-1 ratio.

Honestly guys we are looking down the wrong pipe here , it has nothing to do with the ammount of players but individual units and abilities that are in dire need of fixing.

Disclaimer: the game should be balanced for 1v1 and somehow 2v2. This does not mean neither 3v3+ modes should be forgotten but the notion that if 1v1 is balanced, teamgames modes would be balanced is a fallacy (specially for 3v3+).

I've already give you some pretty CLEAR examples of how, balance is completely different on 1v1 compared to 2v2 or 3v3+.
Just to give you a more CLEAR example: take a look at Crossing in the woods. Look at any replay on 1v1 and then take a look at 2v2. Check which is more "cancer" to play. Show me how much space you have to maneuver and outflank an opponent.

"Honestly guys we are looking down the wrong pipe here , it has nothing to do with the ammount of players but individual units and abilities that are in dire need of fixing."

What needs to be changed, are units and abilities. I agree on this. But you need to look out the context on which the change is gonna be done.
Try this: play with sniper on 1v1, try them on 2v2 and then go up into 3v3+. Do the same with a JT. You would see their worth is completely different.

Good intentions paved the way to hell (this is about the patch of community), after the release of patch game 3 vs 3 completely broke, a new era of ultra spam

All the suggestions are very good but do not forget that the late game of ostheer and soviets need doctrines (rework commanders).

JT has a lot on its plate too, compared to the elefant:
- Nerf mobility stats so that engine-upgraded JT performance will equal live-version unupgraded performance
- Barrage no longer requires veterancy. Costs 30 munitions and projectiles follow an arc so as not to collide with ground all the time
- Range decrease from both attacks to 80 (because increasing 17pounder range would be a terrible idea
- Piercing rounds requires Vet5 (Vet5 currently does nothing since stun-removal ninja-buff)

One of JT abuse is using along with infrared HT. It could shut down any kind of tank allies in big area with narrow path. Port of Hamburg is especially good to abuse this cheesy mode.

CalliOP definitely merits a durability nerf first of all. It could go around Priest level.

Then, range should either be reduced a lot (but kept lethal). In that way, you have to be careful not to have your CalliOP murdered, and that would differentiate it from the long-range priest.

Otherwise, change the barrage pattern from 10-8 to 6-6-6.

Simply slow cooldown time in calliope barrage to mattress level, much like Calliope in CoH1.
- The alpha strike is no longer too lethal. Allow axis player to react.
- Blob is still punished if left unchecked.
- Cost efficiency is maintained.

Disclaimer: the game should be balanced for 1v1 and somehow 2v2. This does not mean neither 3v3+ modes should be forgotten but the notion that if 1v1 is balanced, teamgames modes would be balanced is a fallacy (specially for 3v3+).

I've already give you some pretty CLEAR examples of how, balance is completely different on 1v1 compared to 2v2 or 3v3+.
Just to give you a more CLEAR example: take a look at Crossing in the woods. Look at any replay on 1v1 and then take a look at 2v2. Check which is more "cancer" to play. Show me how much space you have to maneuver and outflank an opponent.


What needs to be changed, are units and abilities. I agree on this. But you need to look out the context on which the change is gonna be done.
Try this: play with sniper on 1v1, try them on 2v2 and then go up into 3v3+. Do the same with a JT. You would see their worth is completely different.

The examples given are not clear though and have nothing to do with unit or ability balance but only map design. A Jagdtiger performs the same in 1vs1 as it does in 4vs4 the stats are the same they don't change. A Jagdtiger is meant to send long range projectiles towards enemy armour which is it's purpose and it performs this in 1vs1 , 2vs2 , 3vs3 and 4vs4. You may have to adapt your strategy to suit the map but this is the case with every game anyway.

The examples given are not clear though and have nothing to do with unit or ability balance but only map design. A Jagdtiger performs the same in 1vs1 as it does in 4vs4 the stats are the same they don't change. A Jagdtiger is meant to send long range projectiles towards enemy armour which is it's purpose and it performs this in 1vs1 , 2vs2 , 3vs3 and 4vs4. You may have to adapt your strategy to suit the map but this is the case with every game anyway.

Yes this is largely correct, both the map and the units are factors. The JT (using the example) is an absolute necessity for at least 1 player in 4v4 modes but its effectiveness depends on the map as you say. But if you were playing 1v1 the JT doesn't really fit any clear position in the game; sure it performs the same roll but that roll is going to be needed very rarely.

Or in a smaller map like the port, you play in 4v4 team as OKW and through no fault of your own you end up with 3 other OKW players. On a map that small with so many base trucks you are all going to suffer heavily from a CalliOP or Land mattress through no real fault of your own; just down to the random team set up and the map chosen by the match maker. But in 1v1 on the same map the unit would not over perform so much. So it is certainly a combination of both things.

In team games, there are times where a player is faced in a 2v1, 3v1, or 4v1 battle. Holding off 2+ players is something that cannot exactly be balanced directly. But that isn't necessarily the core of the problem.

The Company of Heroes franchise has a number of features that can actually accommodate this reality:

Victory Points and resources tied to territory sectors. (CoH1 also tied pop cap to territory, which was a huge gameplay component, despite people's complaints.)
Suppression and (directional) cover. These are what act as force multipliers for units. A single MG with a spotter/meatsheild) can fend off 4 players marching infantry blobs forward. (But not without a spotter, then the MG gunner gets rolled.) But the part of the game where unit positioning and facing comes into play is what makes all the difference. While maps are a huge factor here, unit access, viability, and availability for each faction are likewise important.

*Snip*

Nailed it. Yeah I feel like these would be some good changes and the Jag 85 range has been something thats been needing changed for awhile.

The coli-OP I feel should get the health/armor reduction as a 6/6/6 would just nerf its overall damage rather than putting the unit at risk. Risk by far would be better option to choose as it not only rewards players who can chase it down but doesn't severely hamper its effectiveness as a splash damage unit.

Nerfing the Calliope may be logic and sound, but it's the last good tools the Usa faction have in the largest team format (3v3,4vs4) so the impact on that faction will be meaningful.

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.

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.

Those are the best formats, it's where the feeling of war is the best. it's also the hardest mode (4vs4 + automatch alone) because you have to cope with all kind of teammates.

It's just that all sides need to have the same tools to fights (some have better tools, some come faster but every one has something for any situations. All of this balanced to be fun.

We are not far from the good balance, just a bit more tuning on the more problematic units (The one being the most used and those that killed too easily without efforts)

Just keep doing the good job at balancing your are doing, til all formats are done.

Some more maps would be fun too.

It's not for everyone, but still those formats are the most popular.

That will keep COH2 alive and kicking !!!

Those are the best formats, it's where the feeling of war is the best. it's also the hardest mode (4vs4 + automatch alone) because you have to cope with all kind of teammates.

It's just that all sides need to have the same tools to fights (some have better tools, some come faster but every one has something for any situations. All of this balanced to be fun.

We are not far from the good balance, just a bit more tuning on the more problematic units (The one being the most used and those that killed too easily without efforts)

Just keep doing the good job at balancing your are doing, til all formats are done.

Some more maps would be fun too.

It's not for everyone, but still those formats are the most popular.

That will keep COH2 alive and kicking !!!

Well, I understand your point of view about the feeling, but still: this game is made for 1v1 and 2v2, the resource design doesnt work properly in higher team games. Thats why they have the reputation of being noob games, since you hardly need micro or unit preservation, but rather spamming tanks is the norm. Maybe that is what players want, but it cannot distract from the underlying problems of these modes. Oh, and according to coh2charts, 3v3 and 4v4 together are played less than 1v1 and 2v2 combinded (around 45-55).

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

Limit arty like heavies.