Teamgames resource inflation

Im forking this thread from another.

Basically i want to ask to any map maker and any present mod developer:
can map resources/min can be tweaked or changed? (indepently of other maps of course)

If so. Is it worth to separate resource income from teamgames and 1v1s?

My point is: If all teamgame maps resource income is halved, it effectively delays any rushed teching.
It also promotes more infantry and team weapons warfare and tanks become more valuable.
Competitive 1v1 remains the same. Teamgames will require a little more coordination. win-win scenario

This any cost buff/nerf will have double the impact on teamgames and becomes easier to balance.

To anyone else, share your thoughs

Its a buff to blobbing and premades more than anything

Just make cache cost scale for player count. 4 players? X 4 cost then.

Just make cache cost scale for player count. 4 players? X 4 cost then.

right, 1000mp caches is a great idea xD

Its a buff to blobbing and premades more than anything

Miragefla did that.
200 for 1v1, 250 for 2v2, 300 for 3v3, 400 for 4v4 per cache.
People freaked out and the idea was dropped. It worked quite well in his test mod and it did
slow proliferation of tanks. The current 250 cost of caches is a compromise.

Miragefla did that.
200 for 1v1, 250 for 2v2, 300 for 3v3, 400 for 4v4 per cache.
People freaked out and the idea was dropped. It worked quite well in his test mod and it did
slow proliferation of tanks. The current 250 cost of caches is a compromise.

Caches are only a small part of resource inflation. The biggest problem is that in 1v1s usually about 75% of resource sectors is constantly either changing hands or cut off, so ultimately there is a lot of "down time" in which sectors are either neutral or cut off (thus not generating any income). In most team games maps however, 75% of sectors is never contested. Only a handful of frontline territories is fought over. On some maps, these aren't even resource sectors (Angermunde for example has VPs as the frontline). Resource income is much more stable, and that is what inflates it compared to 1v1 (for which the game's resource/costs pacing is balanced).

also many teamgame maps have fuel in so defendable and easy access spot that there is not chance to even interupt the flow. Lienne forest has fuel right infront of base and only realistic scenario where you are going to even decap it is if skill diffirence between teams is massive. Fuel should be located in places where they switch owner much more easily and cant be hunkered down into without considerable effort.

Caches are only a small part of resource inflation. ...

imo is is quite big.

In a 4v4 game caches is actually 4 times more cost efficient. If one one add the fact that research cost is also reduced by the number of units one produces the problem that creates a completely different economy.

The time to cap the map and the times sector are contested are also issues but cashes imo are quite a big issue.

imo is is quite big.

In a 4v4 game caches is actually 4 times more cost efficient. If one one add the fact that research cost is also reduced by the number of units one produces the problem that creates a completely different economy.

The time to cap the map and the times sector are contested are also issues but cashes imo are quite a big issue.

Indeed but that's also a consequence of not been able to CONTEST THOSE CACHES as well. CACHES matter on the long run. There are other factors which skews things on the early/mid game which is what rose up this discussion.


OP: map resource points can't be changed as in CoH1 (low/high).

Variables to take into account as to why teamgames can be problematic.

-Manpower. Yes, each player has it's own personal income, but in the wider perspective, you are putting up to 4x more manpower into the map which leads to...

-Popcap. The amount of strategic, fuel, muni and victory points don't differ too much from mode to mode and from map to map. You still only need a single model of a squad (or special vehicle with ability) to cap a point.
Even if the maps are bigger, points are been capped simultaneously by 4x players for a team. This also makes harassing territory not ideal, as there's no "empty" spaces in the map. Same with VPs, you have more players than VPs to contest and defend.

-Teching. More players means more units. More units means it's highly likely that specialized units will have enough targets to pay for themselves.
This also makes skipping certain techs, which leaves gaps in an army composition on 1v1, ideal as you can rely on your teammates to cover for you.


My approach to the problem:

Caches: Same as with the OH Opel Blitz, caches should only reward the player who built it. Rollback cost to 200mp. In teamgames, any player can "attach" themselves up to any cache for 200mp. Dubious if OKW should be able to build caches or only be able to "attach".

Strategic resource points: not sure if possible. Depending on number of players, increase time required to cap a flag but decreased time to DECAP a flag proportionately.
Random numbers as an example:
1v1: it takes 30s to transform an enemy point. 15s to decap, 15s to cap.
2v2: 12s to DC, 18s to C.
3v3: 10s to DC, 20s to C.
4v4: 8s to DC, 22s to C.

Make harassing a viable optional choice, as it takes "more time" for the defenders to recover and connect the territory lost. This also makes the early game slightly slower, as it takes more time to cap neutral territories.

I just wanted to throw in my support for Cache price and CP gain to scale based on # of players on the team.