Does 4vs4 deserve more attention from relic? (CoH3?)

Now lets place this 1vs1 air of superiority in the bin for a thread, I don't want this to turn into a bashing war between different gamemodes...

But numbers don't lie, the average CoH2 player is overwhelmingly a teamgame player. 4vs4 completely dwarfs 1vs1 for playerbase and yet it's rather second fiddle in patches or updates with most of the attention on 1vs1. Commanders when they have been introduced are rarely with supporting teammates or team play in mind bar a few select abilities (P4 command tank, mark target etc). There should be more abilities and more team based fuctions if you ask me.

There's also the balance issues with teamgames in mind, where as OKW and Ost seem to synergise quite well for teamplay Brits and Americans for example just seem to be a cobbled together mess and work as such in teamgames. Balance is currently achieved between a mix of crutch units in each faction rather than good faction design. I hope for any future factions included in CoH3 as DLC to actually fit and work better amongst each other.

Personally I would like to see relic increase player numbers and map sizes for CoH3, possibly 5vs5 or even as far as 6vs6. This is the way I can see CoH growing as a franchise, capitalising on what is popular and catering to that market to make money.

B-but Swordfisch muh 1vs1 ESL scene! it can't fall behind 4vs4 pleb pandering ruining balance!!?

I too enjoy the 1vs1 aspect, it's one of the most thrilling parts of the game. But the certain elitists in this community should probably realize whatever money relic will profit from can only help game balance (it's not like the current model is working, the Esports scene is dead bar some community efforts to pump life into the game for relic). Maybe we could see a seperate resource income and unit timings between modes... who knows

the only problem with 4x4 is random mates , in team games, although the allies are stronger, but not much

Without hard caps of population lower then in lower game modes and without resource inflation?

Nope.

hell yes mate hell yes !! larger community should be first priority

No one on this site cares about 4v4 at all except for Lima, myself, and maybe Sturmpanther. Have you posted on Steam or Relics site?

I too enjoy watching matches of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3. But to me 4v4 is by far the funnest game mode.

1v1 - One Miss-click, some bad RNG, 4 sec lag, or just turning the wrong corner and its GG.
2v2 - 2nd best game mode since maps are mostly smaller 1v1 maps.
3v3 - Maps are too large, you get mowed over by blobs.
4v4 - Perfect size of maps and quantity of units on the field for complete mayhem! Mortar and artillery are a major problem.

They'd be able to balance all gamemodes accordingly and well (hopefully) if unit stats were different per gamemode. Or fix the larger issue and not sticking 8 players on a 2v2 sized map cough* red ball cough*. But the manpower required behind this is long gone for coh2. #CoH32020

If relic had any sense they would as that is where the majority of there income comes from judging by the player base of each mode. Most of the best 1v1 players just turn up for cash events then vanish again.

The biggest problem with 4v4 is the map pool.

The biggest issue with 4v4 is the matchmaker and team balance (assuming we are talking about randoms - AT vs AT is a different matter and is rare). Trying to balance it without fixing that first wont achieve anything.

Or fix the larger issue and not sticking 8 players on a 2v2 sized map cough* red ball cough*.

If the map feels too small then play 3v3. Same maps, less people

I personally do not want to play on giant maps like General Mud. The point of 4v4 is to play WITH your team. If the map is too big, you end up playing a 1v1. That is why NO ONE and I mean NO ONE likes Lorch Assault. Who wants to get stuck at the bottom in a 1v1. Or Lienne Forrest getting stuck in a crappy 1v1 on the right side.

But I fully agree the map pool needs updated.

ISSUES (COMMUNITY MOOD SCORE):
LORCH ASSAULT (6) - 1v1 bottom, City mortar fights mid + top.

LIENNE FORREST(7) - Forrest is meh. Units are clumped too much end game making arty too effective.

PORT OF HAMBURG(7) - Better with patch. Most people hate how it turns to mortar fight.

GENERAL MUD(8) - OK map. A little too large. Its 40 kM to your base.

La GLEIZE(8) - OK map. A little large but the size helps clumping issues. Cutoffs are cancer. Right side needs some work to open it up between mid and right.

VIELSALM(6) - Map is very polarizing left/right. Mid has mines. Engagement areas at VPs need to be improved. Movement/flanking is difficult around VPs.

REDBALL EXPRESS(8) - I love this map. Some hate the lane fights when MGs and mortars become the norm. Should open more paths left to right.

STEPPES(8) - Good map. Some say long range favours axis, but I see allied blobs ruling this map most games.

LANZERATH AMBUSH(7) - This was the worst balanced map ever until the DBP. Now it is better but still favors the North spawn. Needs more openings in mid. Needs South fuel to be more accessible(move to mid).

ESSEN STEELWORKS(8) - Engagement areas around fuels are meh. Its always a cluster **** and somewhat random as to who gets the fuel. Stupid gravel/grain train thing on right VP needs to go. The akward angles around the fuels/VPs force full dives as opposed to pushes. WAY TOO MANY BUILDINGS!


MY PERSONAL SCORES:
LORCH ASSAULT (4)
LIENNE FORREST(6)
PORT OF HAMBURG(8)
GENERAL MUD(8)
La GLEIZE(8)
VIELSALM(6)
REDBALL EXPRESS(9)
STEPPES(8)
LANZERATH AMBUSH(5)
ESSEN STEELWORKS(7)


I VETO Lorch, Vielsalm, Essen. I just do not have fun on Essen, especially north spawn. Lienne I fight dropping when I get the forrest, but you can always push the mid when the forrest starts to suck. Lanzerath South East spawn = smashing your head against a wall and probably losing.

As you can see, I do not think any of the maps are 10s in anyones eyes. You cant please everyone. I guess we could look at the community voting from the last patch where maps were removed as well, even though they have gone through some changes.

The maps... it is always the old story.
So i wont comment on maps.

For 4on4: To be honest i think 4on4 is already the biggest mode CoH should add. 5on5 or bigger would be a nightmare.
The best would be separated/scalling balancing for player vs player modes but i'm afraid that it would end in a amount of work that Relic cant handle (neither in CoH2 nor in a future CoH3).

The biggest issue with 4v4 is the matchmaker and team balance (assuming we are talking about randoms - AT vs AT is a different matter and is rare). Trying to balance it without fixing that first wont achieve anything.

Yeah! How is it I (Level 11) am always matched against Puppetmaster (Level 20)

EDIT: TBF, I sometimes play with friends who are much better than me. That must be it

If the map feels too small then play 3v3. Same maps, less people

I personally do not want to play on giant maps like General Mud. The point of 4v4 is to play WITH your team. If the map is too big, you end up playing a 1v1. That is why NO ONE and I mean NO ONE likes Lorch Assault. Who wants to get stuck at the bottom in a 1v1. Or Lienne Forrest getting stuck in a crappy 1v1 on the right side.

Personally I don't like getting stuck WITH players because you can never flank anything. You're just forced to run headfirst into MG spam and entrenched infantry, which results in mass arty wars. Lorch scares me because there's 5 vps instead of 3. I remember on one of Hans sub sats I was playing vs his team and we had all 5 vps under our control for about 5 minutes and they lost.

Everyone talks about maps, but design wise, 4v4 can't be "balanced" when you are trying to add more players to a mode designed around 1v1. If the game was annihilation, that would be another story but when you have basically more players than VPs, strategic points which can't be attacked in the same way as smaller modes and fights which are generally about big pushes rather than singular units. This last point makes "Burst" damage, artillery/indirect and offmap way stronger than intended.

From 3v3+ onwards, there should be a shift in how the game mode plays, because making maps bigger, doesn't solve the problem of allocating more troops into it.

Now here comes the issue: EITHER you play 4v4 because you like playing with teammates and playing with a variety of units/commanders or you play 4v4 because you like to see a spam big amount of units on screen. If it's the 2nd, i guess you won't like my suggestion but you'll have to realise than you'll never have a "balanced" mode.

Option 1: learn from SC2. Archon mode. This distributes the amount of "micro" required, as now 2 players control a single army. This would also "help" matching low level players against better ones, if you allow to face 2 people vs 1. It should probably be optional for single players to face 2 players.

Option 2: keep the same amount of armies, but reduce the amount of popcap for 3v3 onwards. 4v4 could be balanced in a similar way to 2v2 if it has similar maximum popcaps per side. The hardest part would be balancing the teching times and upkeeps.


Lastly, matchmaker plays a bigger part in the quality of the games. If you don't play with a group (which makes it ez pz unless you magically face another team), then you are in games which are called "rainbow" games. If the game used metals for ranking, you would see bronze, gold, platinum and diamond on the same team.

Lastly, matchmaker plays a bigger part in the quality of the games. If you don't play with a group (which makes it ez pz unless you magically face another team), then you are in games which are called "rainbow" games. If the game used metals for ranking, you would see bronze, gold, platinum and diamond on the same team.

Yes, I agree with what some have said, at lower skill levels, the synergy of the team out weighs the maps.

Relic makes games. Games need to look pretty and have eye candy or no one will think they are cool/fresh. So many of the maps in COH2 are maps that look pretty but are not necessarily fun or balanced. Lorch Assault, Essen Steelworks, Port of Hamburg etc look really cool, but are not overly fun to play for skilled players. Most of the 4v4 maps on Steam look very cool but would be terrible to play. Giant level changes, poor pathing etc. This says that lower skill/newer players care more about looks than balance.

Those of us who actually play 4v4 would rather have fun and balanced maps. We are screwed.

Artillery is the enemy of 4v4. For some factions, it is hard to counter. And for others it limits your commander choices leading to stale game play. And more importantly, it requires team work to counter in many instances. To fix 4v4, simply change how artillery works and change the "I WIN" button commanders.

Nope.

CoH2's competitiveness was designed around 1v1. The factions were not designed so that 3-4 people working together could form a complete, well-rounded army.
i.e. units like Katyusha where they are fine in 1v1 where getting one is a challenge and even stepping up only one game mode, units like that becomes extremely hard to balance.

The maps, yea they are bad, too.

In short, trying to fix 3v3+ in CoH2 or giving it more attention than just fixing blatant overpowered units/tactics would be a waste of resource.



Maybe for next game, if they focus more on 4v4. But then again, if Relic makes 4v4 their competitive focus, it will mean the game will be balanced around 4 men's army versus 4 men's army... then I do not know how they would balance smaller modes let alone 1v1. I am sure it is technically possible but it will be extremely hard without separating the modes both balance and design wise, which means they would get separate balance patches etc etc... Not sure Relic would commit that hard.

So even in CoH3, I think if they have to focus on one game mode, it would have to be 1v1...

Nope.
it will be extremely hard without separating the modes both balance and design wise, which means they would get separate balance patches etc etc... Not sure Relic would commit that hard.

I disagree. The problems faced in 4v4/3v3 are often uniquely tied to that gamemode. Some examples:

1) JT/Elefant overperforming - many 4v4 have chokepoints and don't allow for actual flanking, there are also no indirect counters to these units (artillery which causes crits on them for example or an actual vulnerability for infantry attacks)

2) ForwardRetreatBase - this problem is almost exclusive to 3v3 and 4v4 and can also be handled as such

3) Ressource Inflation - How do you avoid ressource inflation? -> You don't give every team 3 damn safe territory points

4) Arty spam - again a problem of narrow maps (where you can't flank) and the lack/ineffectiveness(looking at you Panzerwerfer) of tools for counter-firing

What 4v4 needs:

1. No more team shared resource caches or resource caches at all, this stuff is ridiculous and inflates level of premium units, especially how defensible they are in 4v4 where flanking is less of an option.

2. Bigger maps that allow for flanking but without fuel/muni points and instead capturable FRP's, so that retreats aren't so punishing and FRP factions aren't too OP compared to non FRP factions.

It would make 4v4's a lot less obnoxious. As far as balance is concern I don't think anyone who plays 4v4 really puts balance high on priority or they simply wouldnt be playing it.

I disagree. The problems faced in 4v4/3v3 are often uniquely tied to that gamemode. Some examples:

1) JT/Elefant overperforming - many 4v4 have chokepoints and don't allow for actual flanking, there are also no indirect counters to these units (artillery which causes crits on them for example or an actual vulnerability for infantry attacks)

2) ForwardRetreatBase - this problem is almost exclusive to 3v3 and 4v4 and can also be handled as such

3) Ressource Inflation - How do you avoid ressource inflation? -> You don't give every team 3 damn safe territory points

4) Arty spam - again a problem of narrow maps (where you can't flank) and the lack/ineffectiveness(looking at you Panzerwerfer) of tools for counter-firing

yea but those same units do not cause problems in 1v1. without separating modes and balance separately, you cannot truly fix these problems in both modes

Imo the best spot to balance for would be the idea of the game being primarily a 2v2 sort of game. 2v2 requires both skill and teamwork from both sides and combines a fair amount of elements of 1v1 and larger team game formats.

Suggestions for years have been caps on units, popcap, and splitting resources to account for a larger team game format. The problem would be the "where is the fun if all I do is control a smaller army and have less work". The fix to that would be more incentive for a teamplay game or to interlink those systems together. Games like World In Conflict did stuff like having each player control an aspect of the armies, TW arena (while a bad example in my opinion) does the same thing by splitting the 20 unit army into a team of 10.

From coH3 I wouldn't just like to see CoH balanced for 4v4 but rather to see coH as a team game that requires both coordination and tactics from its players.

I agree.

1v1 bored me to tears yet I feel that the game tries to revolve around it, despite team games being the most popular mode.