Decrease ressource income in team-games?

Jump back to quoted post9 Oct 2013, 13:00 PMTurtle

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.

Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2013, 03:14 AMVonMecha

-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.

Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2013, 03:14 AMVonMecha

-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.

Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2013, 06:27 AMsir muffin

+1, could work

you guys need to play 1v1, seriously. 4v4 is comp-stomp tier

Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2013, 05:51 AMSgtBulldog

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.

Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2013, 02:42 AMVonMecha

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.

Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2013, 02:42 AMVonMecha

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.

Jump back to quoted post13 Oct 2013, 15:09 PMAvNY

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.