One of the issues that's come up a lot in the recent discussions about heavy tanks is teamgame resource inflation.
The maps are larger, so they have more points. However, those points have the same resource values as 1v1 points do, which results in substantially higher resource incomes per player in the larger modes.
This creates a balancing nightmare as the pacing of tech is completely different in 4v4 than in 1v1, whereas the pacing of command points remains the same.
Say you 'fixed' this.
Say you applied a percentage income penalty based on the number of points on the map. If you double the number of points, each point becomes worth half the resources.
That'd make the teching rate consistent across all modes.
Would this make teamgames better or worse?
Teamgame Resource Inflation
23 Jun 2019, 00:52 AM
#1
Posts: 3260
23 Jun 2019, 01:13 AM
#2
Posts: 3046 | Subs: 3
Your arguments make 100% sense but I think it would make teamgames worse. Right now you get punished hard if you lose important points of the map as it's not 1 but 2-4 opponents which out-tech you and have a ressource advantage over you.
THAT is the thrilling challenge in teamgames and I would not want this to change.
THAT is the thrilling challenge in teamgames and I would not want this to change.
23 Jun 2019, 02:54 AM
#3
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
What about just reducing the income per point flatly in team games? Like 1 less fuel and 2 less muni or something like that? Maybe even more in 4v4
Only reason I say that instead your percentage idea, is because I think the inflation isnt just from the # of points. I think some other ppl on the forum have said this, but a lot of it comes from how much less often some territory changes hands compared to 1v1
Also i dont think all larger maps necessarily have more points. Some of them just have larger territory for each point i think, but i could be mistaken. Havent gone higher than 2v2 in a while
Only reason I say that instead your percentage idea, is because I think the inflation isnt just from the # of points. I think some other ppl on the forum have said this, but a lot of it comes from how much less often some territory changes hands compared to 1v1
Also i dont think all larger maps necessarily have more points. Some of them just have larger territory for each point i think, but i could be mistaken. Havent gone higher than 2v2 in a while
23 Jun 2019, 02:58 AM
#4
9 
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
I think the majority of the players in this mode enjoy it that way. Probably best to leave it alone at this point in the games life cycle.
 |
Playercard of tightrope |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
23 Jun 2019, 03:36 AM
#5
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
I think the majority of the players in this mode enjoy it that way. Probably best to leave it alone at this point in the games life cycle.
+1
Most people are more worried about certain units hitting the field that are stronger than others in terms of balance. Majority of teching issues have been resolved within the first 3 years of the game.
23 Jun 2019, 03:52 AM
#6
Posts: 2358
I have got a solution, finally.
If mapmakers can decide how many field capture points are, then simply reduce the amount in larger maps. Less common points, a single fuel and a couple of ammo points.
The results will be:
-Less resource inflation, since there are less resources sources
-More contested territories, since now each one will become very, very valuable.
-Each territory become a more important strategic value for the team and for the game. Giving it a competitive aspect.
-Faction diversity. A doctrine could suit very well in a particular side of the map meanwhile others will do better all-around.
Please tell me map makers are able to simply reduce the amount of capture ponts.
If mapmakers can decide how many field capture points are, then simply reduce the amount in larger maps. Less common points, a single fuel and a couple of ammo points.
The results will be:
-Less resource inflation, since there are less resources sources
-More contested territories, since now each one will become very, very valuable.
-Each territory become a more important strategic value for the team and for the game. Giving it a competitive aspect.
-Faction diversity. A doctrine could suit very well in a particular side of the map meanwhile others will do better all-around.
Please tell me map makers are able to simply reduce the amount of capture ponts.
23 Jun 2019, 03:53 AM
#7
Posts: 5279
Yea thing I play team games for is that the shit hits the fan and it's an all out shit show with friends.
1s and 2s are for balanced play, 3s and 4s are "lose 17 t34s because ramming them into tanks is hilarious" or "convert every building into an FRP and death blob across the map"
The resource inflation is the fun part. Er.... Till some of the factions were able to turn that into fast and freaky heavy armour....
1s and 2s are for balanced play, 3s and 4s are "lose 17 t34s because ramming them into tanks is hilarious" or "convert every building into an FRP and death blob across the map"
The resource inflation is the fun part. Er.... Till some of the factions were able to turn that into fast and freaky heavy armour....
#stalinwept
23 Jun 2019, 16:58 PM
#8
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
1s and 2s are for balanced play, 3s and 4s are "lose 17 t34s because ramming them into tanks is hilarious" or "convert every building into an FRP and death blob across the map"
Even 2s have inflation to a degree. Take a map like rails and metal. There's 4 points for each team that almost never change hands just due to the sheer distance you have to go to harass them.
I think the more static territory control in teams is the biggest reason for inflation
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
SHOUT IT OUT!
Osinyagov: Suddenly, coh2 is slowly dying, but you can play it, playerbase still big enough
Yesterday, 17:00 PM
Yesterday, 17:00 PM
SupremeStefan: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3457737797
Last Friday, 12:42 PM
Last Friday, 12:42 PM
Willy Pete: @Rosbone not dead yet. when that happens the font will switch to Papyrus 
02 Apr 2025, 00:16 AM
02 Apr 2025, 00:16 AM
aerafield: yeah I already prepared my "Can't believe there's comic mode for the 10 daily visitors even on this April 1st" 
01 Apr 2025, 20:29 PM
01 Apr 2025, 20:29 PM
Lady Xenarra: Does anyone else think that USF needs buffs? It feels like they’re on life support sometimes
01 Apr 2025, 02:36 AM
01 Apr 2025, 02:36 AM
Willy Pete: @Rosbone Ahh I missed that memo. I still think its a bad decision though. Adds frustration for players and isnt gonna make them that much money
27 Mar 2025, 15:46 PM
27 Mar 2025, 15:46 PM
Rosbone: It is also good they left it free until after the free to play weekend. Points for that.
27 Mar 2025, 09:34 AM
27 Mar 2025, 09:34 AM
Rosbone: But I agree, the cost to get a full decent Coh game pushing $115 US is not the best idea. Especially when it needs so much more work for casuals.
27 Mar 2025, 09:32 AM
27 Mar 2025, 09:32 AM
Rosbone: To be fair, it was a thank you to early fans right? They said it was not free for long and it would become a pay DLC at some point.
27 Mar 2025, 09:30 AM
27 Mar 2025, 09:30 AM
Willy Pete: Re-releasing free DLC so they can charge new players money for it. Brilliant marketing strategy 
27 Mar 2025, 04:31 AM
27 Mar 2025, 04:31 AM
Rosbone: Congrats to Relic. Looks like Coh3 has finally usurped Coh2 s the popular Coh. You smell terrific. 
.
24 Mar 2025, 02:46 AM
.24 Mar 2025, 02:46 AM
Nickbn: and again someone else replies. I mean come on guys. Give @adamírcz a chance
22 Mar 2025, 14:00 PM
22 Mar 2025, 14:00 PM
Livestreams
 |
|
|
63 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
8 | ||
 |
|
|
10 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.43163.872+9
- 2.59482.879+8
- 3.800454.638-1
- 4.13244.750+6
- 5.286162.638+4
- 6.18151.780+4
- 7.313114.733+9
- 8.376255.596+2
- 9.17773.708+3
- 10.14165.684+9
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
14
Download
1361
Board Info
263 users are online:
263 guests
0 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
69 posts in the last month
6 posts in the last week
69 posts in the last month
Registered members: 53451
Welcome our newest member, transgendercare
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, transgendercare
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM