Decrease ressource income in team-games?
Posts: 688
The problem now is AFAIK, that all players get the total income from all capped points. Since that goes for both sides, this is hardly a balancing problem (allthough somewhat).
The problem is more the abaundance of fuel which means quite fast teching and not least massive tank rushes.
Now, why not postpone the teching and give T1-T2 a longer life in team games? I think it would improve the quality of those games. And maybe even educate players to go for more than just MG42 spam=>PzIV/Panther spam.
I guess income should be lowered proportionally from 2v2 down to about half in 4v4.
Posts: 432
Posts: 40
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
I dont know how they (or I) would approach this actually. But I do agree, bigger games can become tankfests quite fast, and myself, I dont find that less entertaining.
Posts: 401
Small pacing or balance issues multiply out of control.
Another part of the issue is that small lapses in map control balloon into larger advantages for the controlling side. It's become a practical requirement for people to send their first unit straight into buildings near fuel because of this.
Although, the solution might not be to alter the current modes, but instead create some maps geared towards really tight and concise team play. Where the more limited unit and resource counts reward teamwork more. A kind of mode that you could have groups of expert players working together in a kind of coordination that's more than grouping up large numbers of units together for a push, or timing abilities to be all used one after another.
Posts: 688
I agree, things get out of hand too quickly in team games.
Small pacing or balance issues multiply out of control.
Another part of the issue is that small lapses in map control balloon into larger advantages for the controlling side. It's become a practical requirement for people to send their first unit straight into buildings near fuel because of this.
Although, the solution might not be to alter the current modes, but instead create some maps geared towards really tight and concise team play. Where the more limited unit and resource counts reward teamwork more. A kind of mode that you could have groups of expert players working together in a kind of coordination that's more than grouping up large numbers of units together for a push, or timing abilities to be all used one after another.
I don't think it's realistic to expect that Relic is going to work out a whole new set of maps for 3v3+. That's why I suggested 'taxing' the ressources from team games. I don't know anything about the code - I'm just assuming it would be the easiest change if there's some global variabel you can change.
Btw.: lowering ressources and thus teching might also reduce lag? THrough a lower strain on clients, I mean.
Posts: 538
Posts: 419
Posts: 688
-1 who wants to play almost inf only games and can only afford to build 2 tanks for a gigantic map. Sounds as fun as knitting socks for a living.
That's just you assuming the cut back to be so drastic. I never said it should limit you to build only 2 tanks. The level would have to be considered.
I'm just asking for a significant moderations so we don't have like the 4v4 I had yesterday on Rostov with 4 elephants and countless
Panthers/PzIVs.
That is a bastardised version of the otherwise lovely CoH.
Posts: 531
you guys need to play 1v1, seriously. 4v4 is comp-stomp tier
Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2
-1 who wants to play almost inf only games and can only afford to build 2 tanks for a gigantic map. Sounds as fun as knitting socks for a living.
Don't see why this couldn't be fun
Posts: 688
+1, could work
you guys need to play 1v1, seriously. 4v4 is comp-stomp tier
I also play 1v1 FWIW.
Posts: 419
That's just you assuming the cut back to be so drastic. I never said it should limit you to build only 2 tanks. The level would have to be considered.
I'm just asking for a significant moderations so we don't have like the 4v4 I had yesterday on Rostov with 4 elephants and countless
Panthers/PzIVs.
That is a bastardised version of the otherwise lovely CoH.
Im not sure you are remembering correctly. Coh 4vs 4 mostly ended in massive supertank and vetted med tank spam plus a whoop load of call ins. And dont forget the non stop arty.
4vs4 were hardly ever strategic battles. It was about who cold amass the rolling ball of doom first and smash it in your face, and polly whomp your base.
Posts: 688
Im not sure you are remembering correctly. Coh 4vs 4 mostly ended in massive supertank and vetted med tank spam plus a whoop load of call ins. And dont forget the non stop arty.
4vs4 were hardly ever strategic battles. It was about who cold amass the rolling ball of doom first and smash it in your face, and polly whomp your base.
You're absolutely right, but I wasn't actually referring to COH1.
By writing just 'CoH', what I meant was, that it hurts my general love for Company of Heroes (all versions) that the state of COH2 3v3+ games is, what it currently is. This game has an incredible depth and much beauty in its tactical options.
But all that doesn't stand a chance in 3v3+ atm. Those games are like a virgin being raped by Godzilla.
The fact that the problem existed and never was adressed in CoH1 deosn't really change the need to do so now in CoH2.
Posts: 75
After watching EXPERTSVonIvan's stream last night where he, and his buddies, was playing 4v4s, they discussed/laugh at, how much resources they floated and "doesn't matter what units i build, as i'll build 100pop worth of them; anytime i want" and proceeded to either, spam su-76s, penal bats., and/or 120mm mortars (i love seeing more than x3 fire/land on thier target(s)).
Not saying this was not entertaining, cause it was but, I did not realize that COH1 3v3+ maps had alot of LOW points.
I do think they need to re-work resources for 3v3 & 4v4 as this community is playing more and more of those game types.
Posts: 476
But on the other hand, please take into consideration that there are many people who play 4v4 BECAUSE it's a spamfest and it doesn't matter what you build or lose.
If the ressources would be toned down it would come closer to a 1v1 I guess, and I wouldn't want to play a 1v1 were I have to rely on 3 teammates . (P.s. maybe not really 1v1 like but 2v2).
Btw, another mode would be funny. 2v2 but with 8 Players. 2 Players would play together, this would improve the micro by alot .
Posts: 215
Posts: 862
I'm not sure you are remembering correctly. Coh 4vs 4 mostly ended in massive supertank and vetted med tank spam plus a whoop load of call ins. And dont forget the non stop arty.
4vs4 were hardly ever strategic battles. It was about who cold amass the rolling ball of doom first and smash it in your face, and polly whomp your base.
Are you sure you played US much? US does not have a "rolling ball of doom" and only seemed to if you were already losing as Axis. US/allies had to grab and hold field dominance to prevent vet-spam and panther swarms. If you ever played US you knew by mid-game if you had a chance or not. It was far FAR more exhilirating to come back from a near-defeat in mid/late game as US. As Wehr, you could be down 50-450 and by 50-400 you knew you would win, the question was just if you would have to grind it out or steamroll.
Finally the Brits might be able to get a "ball of doom" but to do so would take lots longer since their units were expensive. Also they had to have good teammates who could protect them as they set up.
Posts: 862
On King of the Hill there were some high-resource points in the south, but no VPs. There were VPs in the north, but no resources. that map was MEANT to be played only as VP and you had to choose between grabbing VPs or resources. Without VPs it is a race for US to both grab the resources AND quickly defeat Axis. Otherwise all those hedges and forests make it VERY axis friendly (panthers ignore hedges while it creates shadows for US and brit AT). Without VPs I would say it is hugely in axis favor, especially since axis has non-doctrinal artillery and PE have very mobile mortars, not to mention both have non-doctrinal hedge crossing tanks.
Posts: 829
In vCOH there wasn't a lot of resources on the map. 3v3 and 4v4 never had more than +5 fuels unless it was part of the map strategy. Some maps had a bit more but it was part of the map-game.
On King of the Hill there were some high-resource points in the south, but no VPs. There were VPs in the north, but no resources. that map was MEANT to be played only as VP and you had to choose between grabbing VPs or resources. Without VPs it is a race for US to both grab the resources AND quickly defeat Axis. Otherwise all those hedges and forests make it VERY axis friendly (panthers ignore hedges while it creates shadows for US and brit AT). Without VPs I would say it is hugely in axis favor, especially since axis has non-doctrinal artillery and PE have very mobile mortars, not to mention both have non-doctrinal hedge crossing tanks.
It was just about impossible to win King of the Hill as Axis (no VP) if you had 2 good teams....
Axis had no maps that favored them in 3v3 or 4v4 (closest one was Red Ball)
I played with bunch of friends who were all very good, and best odds you could get was 1/3 chance if you play Redball and 1/5 chance if you play Montarigis.
With teams of evenly skill players.....
Livestreams
52 | |||||
13 | |||||
274 | |||||
18 | |||||
12 | |||||
5 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.269143.653+2
- 10.10629.785+7
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
9 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Wasza428
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM