Balancing should be done first in 4vs4 then downward

You are all missing voltardark's point:

Imbalances in units are exaggerated in 4v4 more than they are in 1v1 because anything that is imbalanced in its abilities/strengths vs. its cost/weaknesses is magnified if more people can spam such a unit. In that he is entirely correct.

Of course 4 players can spam lots of artillery, but there would be a cost to mobility. If they come too soon it will be obvious. If counters are too easy to a mobile army killing them, it will be obvious. On the other hand, if only one opponent with bomb runs and another with some form of vision can counter them, then just exposed their side to a whole lot of hurt.

You are all missing voltardark's point:

Imbalances in units are exaggerated in 4v4 more than they are in 1v1 because anything that is imbalanced in its abilities/strengths vs. its cost/weaknesses is magnified if more people can spam such a unit. In that he is entirely correct.

Of course 4 players can spam lots of artillery, but there would be a cost to mobility. If they come too soon it will be obvious. If counters are too easy to a mobile army killing them, it will be obvious. On the other hand, if only one opponent with bomb runs and another with some form of vision can counter them, then just exposed their side to a whole lot of hurt.

No, it wouldn't work because the game modes themselves are too different. It isn't just about the units - it's also about the timing of units appearing on the field, synergies between different units and doctrines that you would never see in a 1v1. There is no early capping game in 4v4 the way there is 1v1. The teching is a much faster pace. It really has no relation to 1v1 at all.

Ekko Tek is absolutely right. You can't balance 4v4 and expect it to carry over to 1v1 and vice versa.

4v4 is just for fun. Noone can and hardly anyone wants to play it competitively.

With 1v1 is the opposite for most players (not myself included), which is why I think the OPs suggestion won't make sense.

That said, 4v4 games could be improved without messing around with balancing. For example by lowering ressources, as I suggested elsewhere.

Adding it to custom game options could be a way to satisfy both world:

So to custom game options i would add :

A slider to reduce or increase the population cap from +50% to -50% for all size of match (1vs1 to 4vs4)

A slider to reduce or increase the resources sharing from 150% to 10% for all size of match (1vs1 to 4vs4)

I would not disturb the auto-matching play while making a lot of people happy.

Later, using analysis tools the devs could decide if any of those options could benefit vanilla play.

You are all missing voltardark's point:

Imbalances in units are exaggerated in 4v4 more than they are in 1v1 because anything that is imbalanced in its abilities/strengths vs. its cost/weaknesses is magnified if more people can spam such a unit. In that he is entirely correct.

Of course 4 players can spam lots of artillery, but there would be a cost to mobility. If they come too soon it will be obvious. If counters are too easy to a mobile army killing them, it will be obvious. On the other hand, if only one opponent with bomb runs and another with some form of vision can counter them, then just exposed their side to a whole lot of hurt.

I get the point but I don't see how it would work when in 4v4 you have to deal with different combinations of units that aren't even possible in 2-4 player games.

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.

Absolutely.

At first I thought this was a joke thread. As previously stated, 4v4 is just for fun (if you for some reason think that large games are fun).

Despite the fact that I can't agree on balancing for 4v4 makes a more balanced 1v1, I can agree that resource income for teamgames should be lowered.

But on the other hand: Thats why people play 4v4. To have fun with lots of units.

Balancing pop cap and resource rates in relation to the number of players in a game is a great idea. Rebalancing the core stats of a unit (accuracy, armor, etc) for a mode other than 1v1 is never going to happen, nor should it.

Frankly im surprised teams dont share resources in coh2, I could have sworn thats how it was in vcoh, but then I havent played that in years

Anyone who says that large team modes are inherently balanced is being short sighted. Anyone who says they should never be balanced is expecting too little.

3v3 and 4v4 are game modes like any other. It takes other methods to balance it, but it can be done. Likewise, if you release a game with those modes available, you should properly balance it.

It's like saying all those MOBAs or smaller RTS games out now with 5v5 should never be balanced because they have people on teams.

While some do play team games for running around with lots of units, and I do as well, I still find myself wanting something better.

I think it's a missed opportunity for a more interesting game mode that's focused on really good teamwork between teammates.

Let's face it, there's a lot of micro and multitasking in RTS games, and human brains aren't really built for multitasking. It's actually been proven, and those that say they're better at multitasking have been shown to be worse most of the time. This leads to all those mistakes you see even expert players make.

Now imagine a new 3v3 and 4v4 (or 5v5+) geared towards a bunch expert players working in very tight coordination, but with the units that we have now.

Not a MOBA, since those are overdone. But a smaller amount of units controlled by each player, but each player able to fully micro every unit under his command. That would lead to a lot of really awesome fights where you see a lot of perfectly executed attacks, counter attacks, and more.

The replays and casts coming out of something like that would be incredible.

In fact, I believe there were some good CoH1 mods out there that focused on this kind of game.

Wont happen for numerous obvious reasons. 4v4 CoH2 is about as balanced as playing Dota2 as 1v1. There are invariably combinations that are far more OP in those game modes than they are in the modes for which the game is designed.

Its not a "missed opportunity", its understanding that one game cannot be everything at once. Its better to focus on making a good game in its intended modus, rather than a crappy game with a wide spectrum of modes.

A basketball is designed for basketball games. If you show up to a baseball game with a basketball, you are not going to have a very functional game as compared to playing with a baseball. Or vice versa.

Let's face it, there's a lot of micro and multitasking in RTS games, and human brains aren't really built for multitasking. It's actually been proven, and those that say they're better at multitasking have been shown to be worse most of the time. This leads to all those mistakes you see even expert players make.

You've misunderstood the research.

Humans can generally multitask quite well. Certainly better than the rest of the animal kingdom. Our brains and nervous system are built to handle many forms of differing stimulus simultaneously as optimally as possible so as to "miss" as little as possible, as a necessary survival function. It can also deliberately be improved by practice and deliberate techniques. The primary limitations are in the neurons to prevent signal overload and in the division of areas of specialisation in the brain, to prevent "cross-contamination" of information as well as for optimum processing in areas that are evolved to handle it faster and better.

Someone who says they are good at multitasking has not been shown to be "worse than others most of the time". What the research says, that you have misread and misunderstood, is that everyones performance in a specific task is worse when multitasking, than if they did that task exclusively. Do you see the difference?

They may "think" they are good at multitasking, but they aren't any better or worse than someone who thinks they are bad at multitasking. The studies merely show that due to the strain and limitations on the brain DURING multitasking, peoples subjective appreciation of their own performance in multitasking, is overrated. TLDR: People are so busy multitasking, they dont realise how poor their performance at each specific task is when performed simultaneously, compared to if they performed them one at a time.

Well if i accept what you say nullist, they should have told us that the game would be balanced only for 1vs1 i would never bought it and i feel robbed. I played VCOH for many years and i never fell that way.

Warning : They should have wrote balanced only 1vs1. But i say its wrong and that the game will be balanced in 4vs4 cause its would hurt the game a lot. I just wander i many people would stop playing if the devs do nothing to balance 3vs3 and 4vs4... We will see.

It wont.

And vCoH or DoW2 where also not balanced outside of 1v1.

Its just how it is.

Me and my friends will stop, but who care...

Same thing in SC2 also, and infact all MMORTS's.

In 2v2, exploiting the game system becomes more predominant, and gets quadratically worse the more player you add. Basically 2v2+ is all about exploiting the games flawed balance systems better than the opposing team does. When you add more players to the mix, build orders, units and abilities become commensurately more unpredictable, variable and prone to abuse in conjunction with each other in ways that are entirely impossible in 1v1.

For example a 10v10 RTS would be pretty much impossible to balance without it being a really extremely simplistic game. 100v100 would have to be the strategic equivalent of tic-tac-toe to retain any semblance of balance.

Well... its not like they say: Let's totally ignore 4v4.
They very well think about the impact of changes on other gamemodes, and often choose a diffrent problem to a 1v1 problem to not srew with 4v4 balance. Also they balance extremer cases in 3v3/4v4, but they don't finetune it I guess.

Btw: The whole german T4 is almost exclusive to 3v3+ .

So how does doing every task more poorly not indicate being worse at multitasking? Doing a poorer job overall is still a poorer job. Which means mistakes during actual play.

"It's just how it is" is pretty much a cop out answer. We should uphold developers to a bit higher standard where appropriate. Not to mention starting out with a better grasp on large team mode balance from the beginning will help make the overall task of balance easier over the course of development.

"It should," is the proper answer. No mode, or player base, should be left out in the cold. And to be frank, while Relic's games are popular over the long haul, the numbers still aren't amazing by modern standards. It's these things, along with technical issues that bring their games down.

And for the most part, Relic has actually done a lot to try and keep the balance at larger team modes. There's changes in patches that directly affect team games more than 1v1. However, there's only so much you can do without either creating a separate set of unit stats, or modifying the modes themselves. I think modifying the team modes is a more reasonable option.

Don't try to pull the scope and limitations. With proper scaling you can achieve pretty good balance in large team modes, main problem is many designers get too hung up on old ways of thinking in regards to RTS games. You don't need to pile on the same number of units you normally get in 1v1 and 2v2 onto every single player in 3v3 and 4v4. Sometimes less is more.

And it's still a missed opportunity, because Relic chose not to try this route early on. Just looking at the after market success of The Last Stand from DoW2 is an indicator. Also looking at the team based games that are dominating the market now, it's definitely a missed business opportunity.

So how does doing every task more poorly not indicate being worse at multitasking?

What?! Because you are COMPLETING MULTIPLE TASKS at reduced quality, but a net efficiency increase, rather than just one. How the fuck can you even say something like that.

Doing a poorer job overall is still a poorer job. Which means mistakes during actual play.

It doesn't matter, because your opponents have exactly the margin for mistakes as well, due to attention limits.

In my perspective people fuck up immensely more in 2v2+ games in RTS than they do in 1v1, with much sloppier micro, much slower reaction time, much poorer builds and generally a great deal of being carried by the stronger player, or carrying the weaker one against the opponents stronger player. In 1v1 there is no allowance for any of that.

"It's just how it is" is pretty much a cop out answer. We should uphold developers to a bit higher standard where appropriate. Not to mention starting out with a better grasp on large team mode balance from the beginning will help make the overall task of balance easier over the course of development.

Its how the fucking universe is, dude. Mathematically. Physically. It is how it is.
Increasing complex systems are increasingly prone to imbalance and collapse.
Every added player is a multiplier in this equation.

1v1 can relatively be balanced, even while allowing for a fairly complex asymmetric arrangement. 4v4 is orders of magnitude more complicated, and you cant just transpose the same system from 1v1 onto it and expect that to deliver the same balance.

Perfect balance is a straight line. No variance. No difference. Limited number of ways to "win". This makes for a fucking boring game, so perfect balance has to DELIBERATELY be fucked up with variances and diversification which harms that balance, in order to make it "fun". Its an artificial process, and one that means the more complex you make the game (ie: the more "fun") the further you get from perfect balance, into imbalance.

"It should," is the proper answer. No mode, or player base, should be left out in the cold. And to be frank, while Relic's games are popular over the long haul, the numbers still aren't amazing by modern standards. It's these things, along with technical issues that bring their games down.

The nature of the universe doesn't give two fucks about your subjective and whining "should". There are any number of things in the world that, ideally, "should" be something else, but they arent.

IRL there is no balance in conflicts. Each side deliberately exploits the shit out of the situation and all means at their disposal. IRL two people talking together is completely different from 8 people talking to each other simultaneously too. This is basic shit, man.

You are expecting the impossible, and trying to justify that expectation with a glib "because it should be so". Pointless.

And it's still a missed opportunity, because Relic chose not to try this route early on. Just looking at the after market success of The Last Stand from DoW2 is an indicator.

What the hell are you talking about. Last Stand was a coop comp stomp.
What the fucking fuck does that have to do with balancing 4v4?

And Relic HAS been catering to this coop market segment with the TOW content.

Also looking at the team based games that are dominating the market now, it's definitely a missed business opportunity.

Its not a missed opportunity, because the game is not designed or targetted for 2v2+ MP.

Mostly its targeted at 1v1 or 2+players+ COOP.

2v2+ is, and has been, in all Relic games, and arguably most RTS EVER, a lolmode where exploiting teamwork to multiply the small inbalances in the games system into OP advantages is the "way to win".

It wont.

And vCoH or DoW2 where also not balanced outside of 1v1.

Its just how it is.

2v2 was pretty balanced.