Is the Soviets underpowered in team games?

I think there are many reasons for this.

Its easier to balance build and commandercombinations in a 1v1 (and somewhat in a (2v2) since there are few synergies to take into account.

They want to cater 1v1 because they want in on the e-sport market.

Another thing, pulled out of my ass but from what I can remember when the stats were shown, it seems more players were searching 2v2 games rather than 4v4s, meaning a bigger playerbase that they can please here.

But mostly, I think its just easier to balance, especially with this assymetric design as Babaroga pointed out.

You also have to consider that germans are easier to play without the players communicating. 2v2+ is an almost guaranteed loss for the soviet players if they do not communicate with eachother.

Seems to me, that team matches are all about:
A) Agreeing on co-supportive Commanders and builds
B) Communication to enact those onfield, in tandem
C) Doing the above 2, better, than your opponent.

I don't understand why they cater to 1v1 and 2v2 though. Balancing 4v4 makes 8 people happier and makes 8 people play more, 8 more people to sell their DLC'sto and makes 8 more people stay and keep the game alive.

You may argue that there is no stiff competition in 4v4 as compared to the 1v1 but really, how can there be stiff competition for 4v4 when it's being ignored?

Its hard enough to balance 1v1, 4v4 has so many possibilities and ways 8 people can exploit units, maps, build orders, tactics, etc...

Tho I agree, they should at least have a look at it and try to rectify the really big problems. I don't see logic in ignoring large part of community to be honest

Why 4vs4 and not 1vs1 :
When you are with your clan, everyone know who is the best players, so nobody want to play against them 1vs1 or even 2vs2.

Still everyone want to play Coh2 with theirs friends on voice chat (Mumble 1.2.4). The solution is to get everyone into a large pvp 4vs4 games or a 4vs4 comp stomps.

While in large 4vs4 clan games there is a lot of boosting, beers and chips... even the losers have fun. After we remix the teams and rematch for more fun. It can last late into the night. It have been like that since vcoh.

Clans like team games, it is why they exist. It's why we need a good balance in 3vs3 and 4vs4...to have fun. If it's fun then we will buy all/more dlcs...

german 3v3/4v4 easymode
3 grens, get fuel
flame ht
skip t4
spam panthers
profit!

I've been playing purely 4v4 for the last 4 weeks always as Soviets. I remember evening when I had a 6:2 win ratio, I remember evenings when I had a 0:8 win ratio.. But In general I feel I lose more than I win.

Now.. I do understand a lot of that is due to my and my team mates' skill and comms, but I do have some observations..

1. the % ratio oscilates mostly around 20%-80%, rarely goes up to 30%-70%
2. On average German players have more stars.
3. When we let germans hold 1 or both fuels for too long (through T1 tech), it's game.

However.. I saw a rapid increase in my wins, when I sacrifice my manpower and build the first 3-4 fuel caches and spam-ping team mates to hold at least one fuel point.

Voltardark: I agree with you. People seem to forget that most clans are divided between team players and 1vs1 players. When people are new to the game they seem to prefer team games since they have someone to help them out and tell them what to do in certain situations and they learn from that. Learning mean that they will get better and as they get better they usually prefer to scale down the game to 2vs2 so they won't have a loss on their account if someone in his team screws up. When they feel comfortable in testing their waters a lot of players go down to 1vs1 after that.

I rarely see new people who buy the game and insantly start playing 1vs1 only.

Myzis: You're quite right in what you're saying. Another big problem in Soviet team games is also that people have no clue in how to play Soviets. It's either Conscript spam all the way with all the expensive upgrades or Maxim/ATG spam and then forgetting to get tanks until +20 minutes. It's not rare to see Soviets building the same building as his team mates as well, like T1/T2 to T3, spamming T34s which are going to be eaten alive by the German immortal tank spam.

Considering that the most popular esports games now are team games, I think they need to reevaluate their stance on who they appeal to.

And even if you're not going for esports or competitive play, team games are what bring in players due to the ability to play with friends.

For all the skill that's shown off in 1v1, there's is an equal if not higher level of skill that can be shown off in both the execution and teamwork in team modes, but that is downplayed due to the old way of thinking about RTS team modes, especially in larger 3v3 and 4v4 games with their emphasis on extreme resources and spam.

3 or 4 players on a team, working together with real coordination is just as, if not more, interesting to watch and play.

Turtle: That's completely true. Just look at the three biggest ARTS games right now, they are all team games and they attract a crap load of people. Problem is that the most known names in this community are 1vs1 preachers and they have Relics undivided attention from time to time.

I just think people who talk about team modes, especially larger team modes (3v3 and 4v4), as being inherently unbalanced, or inherently inferior aren't thinking creatively enough.

They also haven't seen the sweeping changes in the industry and community as to what's popular and fun in the world of strategy. There's a lot of good new ideas, including many positive changes that can be tweaked, and used for more traditional RTS games withing harming the core gameplay. That includes how team modes are handled.

These problems in large team games are just artifacts of balance focusing on smaller games, but by no means are insurmountable so long as you do more tweaking on the large team modes.

How does this apply to Soviet balance? As I said above, a lot of issues are artifacts of the need to balance 1v1, and how things multiply out of proportion. The same goes for say, German players having to deal with hordes of SU-85s in large team modes. You can't fix it unless you choose to either specifically tweak every unit to each mode, which is impractical and crazy, or tweak the mode to the game so that the balance in 1v1 propagates into team games more smoothly.

I don't think Relic is lazy, but I think they just missed a huge opportunity. Nor do I think they are neglecting large team modes since I see many recent patch changes as attempting to address balance just that. But, I believe it's not enough, especially if they want to grow the game (and sell more DLC commanders, skins, and *ugh* faceplates).

But, let's face it, CoH as a series isn't the most popular thing in the strategy gaming world. And old style RTS games are not gaining any ground. C&C was just canceled, for example.

I want Relic to try some internal prototypes, heck, just try releasing one map/mode on the beta servers. Take a map that is sized for 2v2 or 3v3, but stick 8-10 players on it on teams. Some how balance it to limit players to around 2-5 units maximum, or around 25-40 population. Try letting let players use each others' buildings to produce units and pass resources around. Then try it out and keep tweaking.

I'm not talking a crappy MOBA here, just a more concise and focused team game mode that still plays mostly like CoH2. 1v1 remains untouched for those who like that classic mode, and even the old team modes are still there.

It's something where even the most pro players can take their excellent micro, then laser focus it on a smaller number of units that they control, while also coordinating with a teammate (and friend) that has the same laser focus.

Agree relic needs to get in line with the times. But we also need community efforts to support teamgames. SNF for teamgames would be one thing (quite possibly nightmarish to administrate) or other similar larger efforts to promote team-games. I presume this would be 2v2s to begin with, since larger games tend to be broken. However, if teamgames get more attention relic might start to give them more attention and possibly diverting resources to balance that as well. I dont think that they will balance larger teamgames until they can se thee need for it.

It was the same problem in COH1. You cannot balance the game for as well 1v1 as 4v4.

Relic has chosen to balance for 1v1 and partially for 2v2, which I fully understand.

However, I think it would be quite simple to alleviate some of the unbalance in 3v3+ by putting some kind of tax on the german ressourceincome in those games.

Ie. don't touch units or abilities at all. Just lower ressources for the german side in 3v3 and 4v4. I suppose it should be possible.

However, I think it would be quite simple to alleviate some of the unbalance in 3v3+ by putting some kind of tax on the german ressourceincome in those games

And no changes to Sov resource income?

I really think the trick as soviets in larger games then 2v2 is constantly keep pressure on the Germans. Don't ever let them breathe. Every game I won in large team games is when we constantly put immense pressure on them. I feel like that's the key. Once you both become stagnant he bust out a panzerwerfer and it's gg. If a soviet gets arty then it's even more uncomfortable for the Germans. That's what the soviets are about anyway right? Zerg rush those Germans regardless of losses! Ooooraaaabhh!!!!

I really think the trick as soviets in larger games then 2v2 is constantly keep pressure on the Germans. Don't ever let them breathe. Every game I won in large team games is when we constantly put immense pressure on them. I feel like that's the key. Once you both become stagnant he bust out a panzerwerfer and it's gg. If a soviet gets arty then it's even more uncomfortable for the Germans. That's what the soviets are about anyway right? Zerg rush those Germans regardless of losses! Ooooraaaabhh!!!!

Extremely easy with randoms, especially when not everyone speaks understandable English. This basically means that if both sides are unsure about what to do and play passively/defensively, the Germans will win?

Those times I lose as Germans in team games is when I face a well drilled Soviet team that coordinates their forces to attack our weak points. When playing against Soviet randoms it's GG in our favor 95% of the time.

It was the same problem in COH1. You cannot balance the game for as well 1v1 as 4v4.

Relic has chosen to balance for 1v1 and partially for 2v2, which I fully understand.

However, I think it would be quite simple to alleviate some of the unbalance in 3v3+ by putting some kind of tax on the german ressourceincome in those games.

Ie. don't touch units or abilities at all. Just lower ressources for the german side in 3v3 and 4v4. I suppose it should be possible.

The best and easiest way to balance 3v3's and 4v4's is in map design. Where points are, terrain, buildings, etc. that is why Red Ball and Montarigis were the most equalizing maps in VCOH. They took away opportunities to quickly exploit one sides advantage and gave other side chance.

Simple change to starting location would make both Mont and Redball almost un-winable for axis...

and of course have teams made up of players with equal-ish skill. Which is almost never the case with current automatch system

3v3 and 4v4 has always been a joke. its more for lolz and shit gameplay, with some rare awesome battles that just go 'wow' when watching replay.

The best and easiest way to balance 3v3's and 4v4's is in map design. Where points are, terrain, buildings, etc. that is why Red Ball and Montarigis were the most equalizing maps in VCOH. They took away opportunities to quickly exploit one sides advantage and gave other side chance.

Simple change to starting location would make both Mont and Redball almost un-winable for axis...

and of course have teams made up of players with equal-ish skill. Which is almost never the case with current automatch system

I don't see how a map change would change anything unless axis always starts at certain locations - which is not going to happen.

Wrt. shitty teaming up that was also a problem in COH1.

There seems to be a cut-off somewhere where you can shake the total noobs, but if you sink below that certain threshold, you risk ending up in a long losing streak because of total newbie teammates.

My score has been swinging up and down for that reason. And it pains me each time I see that I've been put back in the pool of players eligible for newbie-match up because it takes a lot of Work to win a team game on your own :/

Your proposal that taxing only Osts resource income would balance 2v2+ is so patebtky ridiculous and outrageously biased I dont even know what to say, wxcept that I will disregard categorically everything you say feom this point onward.

Probably the most stupid and incredibly biased thing Ive ever seen on these boards.
I dont understand how someone can even THINK something like that is justified, let alone actually say it out loud.

I don't see how a map change would change anything unless axis always starts at certain locations - which is not going to happen.

Wrt. shitty teaming up that was also a problem in COH1.

There seems to be a cut-off somewhere where you can shake the total noobs, but if you sink below that certain threshold, you risk ending up in a long losing streak because of total newbie teammates.

My score has been swinging up and down for that reason. And it pains me each time I see that I've been put back in the pool of players eligible for newbie-match up because it takes a lot of Work to win a team game on your own :/

currently ranked 100,000 4v4 as Soviet, took me 3 games to get to 4000 in 1v1. I feel your pain, I feel like crying when I see what total noobs i play with/vs.

What I mean by map design: If you have maps with a lot of LoS obstacles and not much open ground, you always gonna struggle to counter Panthers with SU85's and t34's. They are easily flankable by armor and PG's. You cannot fight effectively among city building with Su85's or Zis and have no true AT infantry.

If you have maps that are fully open, than Germans are fucked because they gonna get raped by SU85's long range and snipers.

You can make combination of those features on the map to equalize the armies.

I wouldn't have high hopes of Relic doing and testing this, but once they release map making tools there will be some good maps created by community (like COH Redball).

Which would only leave the problem of matchmaking sucking