Balancing should be done first in 4vs4 then downward

2v2 was pretty balanced.

Perhaps.

But not as balanced as 1v1.

2v2 sits right on the line where balance takes a huge nosedive.

1v1 was always balanced the best, of course Relic will try to balance 2v2+ games if they can without hurting balance of 1v1.

It is not possible to balance 4v4 games, due to incredible amount of different options and strategies a team of 4 players can develop and spamming units that woudn't be possible in 1v1.

Balancing 4v4 games in COH was always done by players themself. By choosing map and start position that equalized the game the best. (redball, Montarigis)

Furthermore by adding high resources to enable Axis to tech up faster and by putting slightly weaker players on Allied team.

This is a reason why most 4v4 COH players, who liked balanced games, are extremely unhappy about automatch and ELO 'balanced games'

P.S. Tho I play 1v1, I prefer 3v3 and 4v4 games (well, I did in COH anyway)

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.

Sorry dude, you got that all wrong.

It means that people who think they are great at multitasking, keep multitasking things they shouldn't.

We all do multitasking, some people are just better at switching from multitasking to more attention or full attention.

If you can do that, you will generally be more efficient and make less mistakes than someone who believes they are doing great job at multitasking everything.

It is also problem that people who multitask everything tend to be so proud, of their self-assumed greatness. It is very difficult to convince them otherwise. You can have as much statistics, mistakes, etc. Every proof possible of their overall inefficiency, at the end they will blame everyone and everything else, but their multitasking.

Trust me, I deal with a lot of that at work

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.

That's an interesting solution. Maybe it's the kind of thing Relic will do if they get enough feedback on their survey saying that players want more custom game options. I'm still hoping for a balanced, exciting 1v1 and 2v2 first, though.

I think the point is making the game fun and somewhat balanced for all the game modes. The focus on 1vs1/2vs2 balance happens because there are less variables to consider in terms of units combinations and spammability but more variables in terms of strategic choices, timings, specific units synergies, leading to more interesting and entertaining matches between players than what you could ever get in a 4vs4 because in 1vs1 each single unit can make the difference.

In a 4vs4 if one player loses a sniper it's really not a big deal, in 2vs2 or 1vs1 it's a whole different story. (and still, in COH2 it has lower impact than it had in COH1).

My personal idea is that Relic balance plans will surely affect directly 4vs4: the veterancy system changes (that Peter mentioned in the stream and that will come on a later patch) are really going to change the feeling of many units and their impact on the battlefield.

But more than that I think that the game needs its Resource system to be revisited to give team modes some more balance: MP income and max population should be linked to each territory you control (like in coh1), strategic points should not provide anything else than MP and resource points should become more important again.

Currently it's too easy to bank resources, MP comes without any effort from players and other resources come from holding strategic points: this leads to an increased spammability of units and abilities because you are never out of resources, there's no MP drain anymore nor tactical control of map sectors (or tactical capping where you skip certain sectors to reach faster resource points) because each sector provides all the resources so you must it's important to cap it, you don't fight anymore for the control of resource points, you fight for the control of each single small point.

Take Montargis 4vs4 map of COH1, the tactical placement of resources (fuel=mid, munitions=north-east) gave importance to each single player who has a specific task of securing his part of the map or work with teammates to secure specific parts of the map to get the resources they wanted for specific strategies or units. Controlling the north/east usually meant heavy artillery use and tons of munitions cost abilities like artillery barrages and strafing runs, controlling the center meant a vehicle centric strategy..And this applies pretty much to all the 4vs4 and 3vs3 maps.


TL;DR: Units spammability would drastically decrease if maps in COH2 would be designed following the mentality described above and after a resource system change that would promote tactical play and that would grant resources to the team that plays better holding the most important objectives, not just to the team that holds some map territories.

Another way to tackle that problem would be to have some kind of fuel upkeep for all tanks and/or adjusting the fuel output on some maps. With a fuel upkeep, a lower fuel output on some maps would create new tactical situations. Higher fuel output maps could also be made and could also be interesting.

If fuel are are also used for tank's upkeep, their replacement would become harder so tanks preservation would become more relevant thus triggering important tactical decisions.

I made this tread for the sole purpose of bringing ideas that could help make the game more fun an interesting on larger maps.

More fun=more sales so everybody is happy.

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.

Its easier to balance for 1v1 since you're only balancing a few units instead of a swarm. If it makes you feel any better the balance in 1v1 right now isn't great either, I'm sure as 1v1 gets more balanced 4v4 will feel better too.

Short of generating different unit stats for every game size, 3vs3 and 4vs4 balance is never going to coincide with 1vs1 (and 2vs2) balance. And I'd much rather have 1vs1 balanced.

As a simple example, take the Elephant. Frankly speaking it's horribly weak in most 1vs1 engagements. Why? Because the maps don't have a lot of open space, and it doesn't have a whole lot of vehicle targets to engage while sucking horribly against infantry. Then look at the same unit and see how hilariouly OP it is in in team games with the exact same stats.

Note: I'm not asking for them to do this. Just saying it's the only reasonable way to achieve balance in different game sizes right now.

3v3 and 4v4 is played alot, not addressing the imbalances is just shortsighted.
it's never going to get solved untill $ega realises that its worth investing money in an extra person like pqumsieh.

its everywhere the same, people are squeezed like lemons to maximize profit, or in other words, they focus on 1V1 because they only have resources/manpower to do that, not because devolopers don't want.

so if you want to change something

get arguments why 3v3 and up is important for the casual player and mass mail sega executives to make them aware that investing = more money.

Idea of balancing from 4v4 downwards is the worst idea ever. I can't even imagine how that would.

the problems in 3V3 and up are not in 1v1

like
investing in a big unit and sacrificing capping power is possible in teamgames , not in 1V1

endgame tank tactics like building up panthers/tigers and then blitzing past the more immobile soviet pak/su defenses is not even possible in 1v1

the way ostheer has linear teching makes them by default better synergised, soviets need to have a balance of T1 /T2 which is harder to achieve in pickup games with random people.

for the rest yeh balancing 1v1 benefits also bigger games, but those have their own unique problems that should get addressed

Pragmatically speaking, best way for anyone to overcome the balance issues in 2v2+,is to get a pool of partners you can a) communicate with b) preplan strategies/build orders with.

Ironicaloy, but somewhat fittingly, in other words, the best way for a person to deal with imbqlances is to make use of exactly that which makes teamgames inbalanced: your partner.

So by turning the problem, into your solution.

If i played teamgames, id be very wary of joining random teams, and doubly frustrated when mynrandom team comes up against an actual coordinated team.

Get a mic, setup a skype account, find someone you get along with, and go pwn random teams (boring) until you finally meet a worthy team. Then have epic funtimes and befriend them for future partnering, maybe even form a 4man team with em.

Nullist: Pragmatically speaking, if you read through the whole thread, you'd notice that in post #20, voltardark clearly states that the 8 of them DO PLAY AS A TEAM and they DO communicate.

Implying I stated, or thought, that they dont.

I havent.

Voldark strikes me as exactly the kind of teamplayer I can respect.
He takes it seriously as a team effort, and wishes the game would better accomadate his own commitment to that. Id consider it an honor and a pleasure to team with him, as well as do my damndest to deliver my own weight on the team.

To clarify my central point, teamplay diversifies the balance situation in a way that 1v1 doesnt.
Specifically, because your team is only as good as your teamplay is.
No longer is relative balance in a match just a matter of internal game balance, it is also a matter of how "balanced "your team is vs the other team.

But when it comes to teamplay, it also comes to an extent of deliberately exploiting even the hairline imbalances in the game system. Adaptively, sometimes with initiative, sometimes reactionarliy, but balance in teamplay, rests ultimately primarily with how good the team works together, and secondarily with balance, and only third with how good each individual player is. Its a completely differnt ballgame to 1v1, because you immeasurably complicate the match with the ultimate random factor, which is another human being.

In an imperfect game system, thatnis not optimised or deliberately designed for teamplay, where the fundamentals of structure o0and design are vested and directly the same as they are in 1v1, victory is ultimately based in which team can better exploit the 1v1 basis, in a 2v2+ system it was not designed for.

Now, where this gets difficult, or unusual, to understand for what it means, is that when you have two, teamplaywise, equal teams, the deciding factor is who best exploits the options available to them, as a team, over the relative imbalances rhe opposing team is likewise seeking to leverage. Because the game is not specifically balanced for 2v2+, that is where the real challenfe is. TLDR: With tplanning with your team to a) usw the games imbalances to your advantagem because the game is not balanced, and because your opponent will do the same. b) By anticipatinf your opponents doing the same.

A team that doesnt exploit the game, will lose vs an opposing team that does.

The cascade is roughly the following:
A) Understanding the games imbalances
B) Coordinatinf the team, and planning, to exploit them.
C) The individual skill level and capacity of each team member to fulfill them in teamplay..
D) The capacity of team to carry its weakest link.
E) How good your opponent is at all of the above.

It sounds harsh, but if the game is not balanced, then it becomes an issue of exploiting imbalance better than your oppinent does. THAT takes communication, planning and teamwork. And that is the meta in an unbalanced system. Ensure your team exploits imbalanxe better than your opponent. Its a "sick" kind of meta, but infact strangely sound and certainly not unprecedented in MP. To take a industry standard for MP as an example, in WoW PvP, some teams ultimstely dominated, not only because they where better teamplayers, but specificaly because they optimised their choices to be as exploitstive (read: advantageous) as possible, in an imperfect system.

Just wanted to add in here: Did anyone take a look at Starcraft II Teamgames? Omg. Most Unbalanced Shit ever.

With the modifications incoming on veterancy regarding hit points gain per stars, (i hope that i'm not wrong with that) and the devs also admitting that some more basic versatility is needed for the sovs. The balance in 3vs3 and 4vs4 should be better.

There is no hitpointgain per stars. At vet1 no stats are gained only the vet1 abilitly.

At vet 2 German vehicles gain a 0,45 received damage modifier. At vet3 they gain a 1,78 damage modifier.
Soviet vehicles at vet2 gain 1,78 damage modifier and 0,875 received damage modifier. At vet3 they gain an additional 0,6 received damage modifier.

German Infantry gets at vet2 a 2,25 armor modifier. At vet3 a 1,78 accuracy modifier.
Soviet Infantry gets at vet2 a 1,25 armor modifier and a 1,78 accuracy modifier. At vet3 they get a additional 1,8 armor modifier.

Therefore the vet boni for Infantry are exactly the same at vet3.
The Armor modifier inrease the durability against smallarms only.
The received damagemodifiers increase the durabiltiy against everything effictivly doubling their hp. But received damage is better then a hp increase would be, because your would repair only at half the current speed then.

But you are right that this will be changed, if that was what you wanted to say.

Ok thank you , my primary concern was only with tanks that become nearly unstoppable once they get vet. Tanks should get offensive bonus only or abilities. They can have smoke and blitz to get away.

Someone said Voidrays?

Adjusting resources n cap may or not prove to be a solution.