Balancing should be done first in 4vs4 then downward

It's like when you want to make a sharp drawing, you make a bigger version of it then you reduce it. Doing the inverse will make the unbalance aspects of 1vs1 only bigger in 4vs4.

So the way to do it is to balance 4vs4 then scale it down to the other modes 3vs3--»2vs2--»1vs1.

This is the way to go if you want a balanced 1vs1 game. Think about it, ask around. It doesn't matter if 1vs1 get more attention of the pros, you will do it right for them too.

Try it and you will see it easier that way.

No.

they said yesterday they are only concerned with 1v1 and 2v2 for competitive play, but the patch changes reminds me of DOWII. It will be lots of shooting lots of retreating and not as much dieing. reduced damage and increased targeting is not a proper fix, i play mostly 3v3 and 4v4 so hearing that yesterday was a turn off in the wrong direction from relic.

4v4s are inherently imbalanced. Explain to me how to balance a tiger's armor vs 2 t/34s that is equally balanced against 8 t34s. Magnifying dps, alpha, resources by 3 or 4 for a team destroys a unit's carefully balanced tank... all of a sudden theres enough su85s on the field to instapop a charging panther that would have no fear in a 1v1 or 2v2.

If you choose to engage in 4v4 spam fests thats the risk you accept

It's why 4-vs-4 need be balanced first, to reduce (slowdown) tank spamming and all others aberration occurring. If resources in 4-vs-4 could be scaled down, it's would force players to cooperate even more. Building tanks would be a more meaningful decision.

Proposition : Dividing the total resource output by the number of players should give more 1-vs-1 like results.

I think balancing 4v4 depends more on balancing the huge maps that have tons of capture points.


Removing fuel gain from regular points and only getting fuel from actual fuel points is one way to do it. This is a safe and efficient way to prevent tank spamming in 4v4 that won't interfere with 1v1 / 2v2 balance.

Dividing the total resource output by the number of players should give more 1-vs-1 like results.

Thar should not change the balance in 1 vs 1 cause x/1=x.
For the 2-vs-2 yes it could lower the resources output a bit.
Would it be a bad thing ?

balancing game around 4v4 is really bad sugestion to say atleast, by really bad sugesstion i mean its really really REALLY bad, and im beeing polite

4v4s doesn't have to be inherently imbalanced. you can balance both 1v1s and 4v4s the problem with balance is

"hey, let's balance the game"
"ok!"
"ZZZzzzZZZ"

Reduce the popcap and resource income in 3v3 and 4v4s so that it promotes more careful play, less offmaps and more teamplay.

That's a ton easier than trying to adjust a panther for the fact that it might need a lower incoming penetration rate in a 4v4 than in a 1v1..

By balancing 4vs4 you will get a lot better balancing in 1vs1.
Scaling upward magnify the problems, scaling down reduce the problems. So balancing from 4vs4 to 1vs1 will give you the best balance in 1 vs1 where the pros are... We are talking about the method to achieve the best results overall and in 1vs1.
Balancing upward = 1 point imbalance in 1vs1 result in a 4 points imbalance in 4vs4.
Balancing downward = 1 point imbalance in 4vs4 give a 0.25 imbalance in 1vs1.
It just give a better balance overall and a better balance in 1vs1...
Please, If you could just show me and example using COH2 that it would be wrong to do that.

the problem is that balancing in relic is.

the unit is too strong, halve damage, the unit is too weak. double hp! in turn this gets cuadrupled in 4v4

By balancing 4vs4 you will get a lot better balancing in 1vs1.
Scaling upward magnify the problems, scaling down reduce the problems. So balancing from 4vs4 to 1vs1 will give you the best balance in 1 vs1 where the pros are... We are talking about the method to achieve the best results overall and in 1vs1.
Balancing upward = 1 point imbalance in 1vs1 result in a 4 points imbalance in 4vs4.
Balancing downward = 1 point imbalance in 4vs4 give a 0.25 imbalance in 1vs1.
It just give a better balance overall and a better balance in 1vs1...
Please, If you could just show me and example using COH2 that it would be wrong to do that.

Lets say we balance Elephants for 4v4. They get useless for 1v1. Let's say we balance the Opelblitztruck for 4v4. It becomes useless for 1v1. Let's say we balance the Sniper for 4v4. There are not enough other units who cap in 1v1 making the Sniper useless.

Lets say we balance Elephants for 4v4. They get useless for 1v1. Let's say we balance the Opelblitztruck for 4v4. It becomes useless for 1v1. Let's say we balance the Sniper for 4v4. There are not enough other units who cap in 1v1 making the Sniper useless.

Sorry i don't understand your reasoning, how changing the resource output or the cost to acquire affect the usefulness of a unit?

i totally see spamming pioneers building quick OP's and mg bunkers and going straight for panthers and raping everything as a legit strategy in 4v4, that will never work in equaly matched 1v1 or 2v2, how can you balance that considering all 4v4 things

the resource income would just artificially "balance" the game, it will become more or less who can spam more infantry and once in a while ull see a tank or 2

Sorry i don't understand your reasoning, how changing the resource output or the cost to acquire affect the usefulness of a unit?

I dont really understand what you say? You wanted examples why balancing for 4v4 wouldn't automatically improve 1v1 balancing.

For example the elephant is already balanced more for 4v4 than for 1v1. In 4v4 he is somewhat overpowered. In 1v1 he is considered not very usefull, because he costs too much, and you need to combine him with other units who can protect his flanks and are good against infantry. This is much easyer achieved in 4v4 were for example a teammate can build Ostwinds. Also in 4v4 the general Choas is much higher and it is harder to break through the enemy lines to kill a unit firing from 100 meter distance.

1) 4v4 will never be balanced and is not intended to be. If all 4 players go ISU152 or two players spamming Howitzers while the others get Elefants that is obviously not ever going to be balanced. 1v1 and 2v2 can be balanced because you are limited in what you can field. Big team games have no opportunity cost because between 4 players you can easily find the resources to get whatever you need.

2) Majority of 4v4 players are bad. Even 1v1 and 2v2 are balanced for the above average or better players, just because someone isn't good enough or doesn't know how to deal with X unit/tactic/strategy doesn't mean it is OP.

3) You would be balancing for scenarios that don't even happen in 1v1 or 2v2. In a 4v4 you can field 8 conscripts, 2-3 snipers, and a few T2 units pretty early. So if you are balancing Ostheer to work against that formula, its not going to translate very well against a comparatively low number of units. The choices are to balance the units against each other pound for pound, or balance thousands of unit combinations against thousands of other combinations- lets be realistic, that will never work.

the resource income would just artificially "balance" the game, it will become more or less who can spam more infantry and once in a while ull see a tank or 2

Let's say :
No change in total resource output for 1vs1;
+ 10% change in total resource output for 2vs2;
+ 15% change in total resource output for 3vs3;
+ 20% change in total resource output for 4vs4;

So resource available for 1 player in 2vs2 would be = (total resources/2) + 10% of total resource.

So resource available for 1 player in 3vs3 would be = (total resources/3) + 15% of total resource.

So resource available for 1 player in 4vs4 would be = (total resources/4) + 20% of total resource.

Reducing the pop cap by an increment of 10% for each player beyond 1 could be a way : 30% aka 70 instead of 100 for 4vs4 ?

Or both ?

It could be only added to the options of custom games (it would make me more then happy)
What do you think ?


What do you think ?

1) 4v4 will never be balanced and is not intended to be. If all 4 players go ISU152 or two players spamming Howitzers while the others get Elefants that is obviously not ever going to be balanced. 1v1 and 2v2 can be balanced because you are limited in what you can field. Big team games have no opportunity cost because between 4 players you can easily find the resources to get whatever you need.

2) Majority of 4v4 players are bad. Even 1v1 and 2v2 are balanced for the above average or better players, just because someone isn't good enough or doesn't know how to deal with X unit/tactic/strategy doesn't mean it is OP.

3) You would be balancing for scenarios that don't even happen in 1v1 or 2v2. In a 4v4 you can field 8 conscripts, 2-3 snipers, and a few T2 units pretty early. So if you are balancing Ostheer to work against that formula, its not going to translate very well against a comparatively low number of units. The choices are to balance the units against each other pound for pound, or balance thousands of unit combinations against thousands of other combinations- lets be realistic, that will never work.

I dunno if we are bad players for liking to play 4vs4 matchs, but for me and my friends it's where the fun is. If the 8 of us are on mumble voice chat, we rather play 4vs4 together then play 1vs1 alone. If we are 4, we team on auto-match. We are all friend, we like to play team game. We like coop. Maybe it's because we are older folks, all over 45...