Balance still not fun at all in team (3vs3+) Open source ?

Team games are the mode with most balance right now. It's the 1v1 that is completely messed up, just pure spam/rush/blob nonsense.

Nice statement. But in the game, you just don't have tools to deal with it. Shtuka strikes and cutoff your sectors, and the all the fun with artillery begin.

Btw, no one cares about this. Same as for 10 ammo assault grenade pack or free faust-rifle nades and volks flame nades upgrades.

Show Spoiler

I think giving Axis and USF bunkers a popcap when they upgrade to an MG would go a long way towards making large team games less of a mess.

Not a bad idea ! but not enuf

So, i've been following this thread for a while and i would disagree with the notion of 3v3 and 4v4 being no fun at all (otherwise they wouldn't have such a huge playerbase). Now first i should add that i play 3v3 mainly, also i don't play with random teammates.

Now i guess the main reason that many people find 3v3s and 4v4s unfun is the massive ammount of artillery that can be brought to the field. I would agree with this, but i also think that artillery has the same weaknesses in 3v3 and 4v4 as in any game mode. This weakness, as most of you know is that it takes popcap and as such takes away from your field presence in terms of infantry and tanks and if you can't get enough value out of the artillery peace you are probably going to loose the game.
Another thing are commander ablities like a scouting flare combined with a stuka divebomb or a sector assault. These are certainly strong, but i might just as well pull them off in a 2v2 and people aren't calling those unfun, are they?

And for the bunker point that was brought up in the last few posts... just build an at gun, or use smoke and demo charges and just walk up to it, it's not that difficult, three shots or one little 45 muni boompack and 150 mp and 60 munis are down the drain. Great for stalling, but not good enough to keep a halfways solid player off a point if he is determined to get there.

Anyway, this has gone on for long enough, but i just want to add that the game is probably in the best state of balance it has ever been and that, in my opinion translates into the bigger game modes too.

I agree with that.

And yes the random matchmaker is making thing worst, because :

Teammate matchmaking in 2+ is base on some rank that is moving. So if you got unlucky enough you will be matched with even worst teammate and once you have digged you grave its hard to get out of it.

also remember that the Axis have better of the bat cynergy.

So my solution is base the number used by the matchmaker to get teammates on the lifetime total amount of victory in ranked automatch.And one you reach a certain number you are now put in pool of real veterans where your random teammates will now be recruited.

That would help a lot. RElIC are you there ?

cool story.
https://steamcharts.com/app/231430

Thats the reason General Mud (IMHO again) is the best 4v4 map in the franchise. Except for the mud part, but the size of the map is perfect for this gamemode.

The deep mud got removed with Sturmpanther's first map revamp update. So the mud is just a cosmetical overlay now with no penalties or anything

There has been some talk of maps and the perfect size. There are a lot of factors to think about besides size but I wanted to put up some numbers for reference.

Opening the Worldbuilder and measuring from approximately the closest BASE-to-BASE point and measuring the Widest Width in relation to the bases I have some numbers.

MAP NAME	CLOSEST BASE	MAP WIDTH
Hill 400	312	535
Lienne Forrest	320	475
Port of Hamburg	357	392
La Gleize	375	552
Essen Steelworks	380	568
General Mud	395	559
Lorch Assault	410	489
Steppes	445	605
Redball Express	445	316
Lanzerath Ambush	460	390

From this table I would say the best map size is something like Lienne Forrest.

The bases need to be around 300 - 400 meters apart. Otherwise it takes forever to get to the front line and forward HQs become OP.

The thing that helps flanking is width. The map needs to be wide enough to allow for flanking but not so wide that blobbing is OP. For example playing Steppes 3v3 is just a blob fest, zero fun. And too small means you can barely flank at all, for example 4v4 Redball.
For a 4v4 I think 400 to 500 would be optimal.
For a 3v3 I think 300 to 400.

Of course the map layout greatly decides how it plays. If all of the important points are in the corners the map feels too big, because it takes forever to get to the front line. A map like Essen feels very large because of the maze of buildings and tight corridors. You are always far away from where you want to be, because you cant get straight there.

ARTILLERY COMMENTS
I would be all for limiting artillery pieces to two for each player Why do we limit KTs and not artillery?

The thing that helps flanking is width. The map needs to be wide enough to allow for flanking but not so wide that blobbing is OP. For example playing Steppes 3v3 is just a blob fest, zero fun.

I do think one factor here besides pure width is what the middle of the map is made of. Steppes is inviting to blobbing because the entire middle of the map is just a wide open area with very limited cover and sight blockers. Add a few buildings, hills or forests in there and it should become much better. The open plains offer no ways to hide your approach and all that is left is to go on a full-on assault (aka blob) and hope for the best.

This is what makes General Mud much better to play (less blobbing and less arty), despite being pretty much as wide (as Steppes), because the entire middle of the map is buildings, small walls and negative cover roads. But it's still open enough to allow for lots of flanking.


I really think General Mud is pretty much the best 4v4 map there is. La Gleize is a close second, if only it had the munitions locations a bit more spread to the sides. Lazereth would be a solid third if it had the bases a bit closer together and if it had a better distribution of the middle sectors (being on the flanks is quite boring). Although I always have some of the most epic games on Hill 400 for some reason.

have you played 4v4s? you know how many stukas can be fielded in 4v4s? ive once had an enemy field quite literally nothing but stukas and an IR truck and quite literally killing our allies armor...

they need to hit, the aoe does not matter, there is not indications for the player to know where they land

I do think one factor here besides pure width is what the middle of the map is made of.

I agree.

I really think General Mud is pretty much the best 4v4 map there is. La Gleize is a close second, if only it had the munitions locations a bit more spread to the sides.

GENERAL MUD - I feel the fuels in the corners makes this map feel huge. And lets forward HQs/healing be very strong.
LA GLEIZE - I feel has some bad building placements and also suffers from everything being far to the sides/corners.

Although I always have some of the most epic games on Hill 400 for some reason.

Yes, I am a fan of having the short base to base distance. Keeps the action fast and crazy. Until the artillery comes out

Yeah, artillery is a problem. I think it should be limited to 1-2 per player and all cooldown and range bonusses with vet should be removed.

Arty is also what makes La Gleize bad sometimes, as I feel most of the action late game actually resolves around the center village which obviously lends itself to arty fests. I would've liked to see the munitions points (with all their garrissons) moved more towards the side to spread out the engagements a bit more to the flanks.

GENERAL MUD - I feel the fuels in the corners makes this map feel huge. And lets forward HQs/healing be very strong.

Might've worked to split the bases like in City 17, as that would put them a bit closer to the flanks without really putting them closer to the middle than they are now.

Artillery is cancer but limiting should not be an option. if someone wants to specialise in arty in teamgames of 3v3 4v4s, well he shall do so then

Tbh my biggest issue with team games is the lack of maps. I play team games for the Absoulte shit show of hell going on, but it's going stale despite there being 2x as many maps simply not in rotation. Why were winter variants removed? A little diversity would go a long way, add more vetos if you need to to offset it.

Tbh my biggest issue with team games is the lack of maps.

It seems like the maps I usually veto are the same ones 50% of players veto. Then the other 50% must veto the maps I dont. So every match lately has been Lienne Forrest or Hill400. Those two maps are the venn diagram maps. The ones that appeal to both types of players.

I usually veto Essen Steelworks, City 17, General Mud, and La Gleize. Those maps feel big and I have fewer fun games on them. I like to play smaller maps like Redball Express or Port of Hamburg. Because I want a meat grinder.

I play team games for the Absoulte shit show of hell going on, ...

This guy gets it

it is not just the size.

Lienne might have great size on paper but with the design (forest) it has, the map is good size for 3v3 and too cramped for 4v4. I guess Hill 400 has most suitable size for 4v4 and less obstruction which makes flanking opportunity more real. Not to say it is perfect.

General Mud I like in terms of size although it could get less deep (distance between the two bases). But it has way too much resource points thus exacerbates accelerated tech pace and snow balling problems that the team games have.

Even tho a lot people might disagree, I actually love the map pool in 3v3 (much more than the one from 2v2 for instance). Especially the 4v4 maps allow for a lot dynamic fights without the camping and clusterfucks due to their size. But then you also have slug fights here and there for some variation, best example here is "Across the Rhine", really really hard to end the game quickly on that map.


The only issue I have with the 3v3 pool is that this trash map Ettelbruck Station is still in there. I think it's even less competitive than vCoH's Sheldt... all about camping and arty spam, total clusterfuck, 0 room to maneuver, almost impossible to capture opponent's fuel (--> long match). The only map where lower ranked players can do well vs significantly higher ranked players.

USF is fine. They have a shit ton of infantry presence mid-game

Due to all the chaos in 4v4, I've toned down USF Rifles and build a lot more MG's. I find because of the blobbing and insane damage going on all over the place, Rifles just end up being a manpower sink with limited effectiveness. Whereas MG's are always good even in late game for suppressing and slowing down infantry movement. The MG's pack up and move pretty quick so I use them offensively. Rifles on the other hand just melt to any engagement later in the game. Just my personal experience.