Caches in 3v3 & 4v4

Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2019, 21:28 PMFarlion

3v3s and 4v4s are the issue, not caches.

Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2019, 21:04 PMDerKuhlmann

Its not fun when games turn into who can spam most panthers and tank destroyers.
So maybe turn it up to 350 manpower so its more a risk?

Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2019, 21:49 PMMr. Someguy

Caches are an issue in 3v3 and 4v4 because they can be put far behind friendly lines and generate extra fuel and munitions in addition to the extra amount you get for being on a larger map with more resource points.

Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2019, 23:05 PMthedarkarmadillo

That's the appeal to team games. You certainly don't play them for the balance....

Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2019, 03:28 AMClarity

I would be fine with Caches only counting for the player that builds them instead of instantly giving the entire team more resources, that way it doesn't impact 1v1 that much but still will have a profound effect on larger team games.

Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2019, 16:44 PMHannibal

From my feeling of 2v2 games, caches need approx. 10 minutes (maybe even longer) to make their money back, which means that even of you build it early, you need to survive to the mid game (which is probably one of the key points where players can close often win the game) until you start reaping the rewards. In 4v4, this time is halved. So if you build it in early game, you have the reward in no time and your cache is much safer.

Make caches cheaper (maybe 200 MP), stackable and limit them to the building player only. And also maybe give OKW caches or something similar then

Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2019, 04:29 AMelchino7

Adding to this, any player can "build on top" of the same point another cache. If not, it's more than likely you will have people griefing or QQ-ing because a teammate "stole" a point.

Jump back to quoted post6 Sep 2019, 15:39 PMGrumpy

It would be nice if this was implemented. In addition, it's probably time to let OKW build caches. Since the resource would only go to the building player, the price should go back down to 200.

Jump back to quoted post6 Sep 2019, 16:49 PMGbpirate

While caches are certainly an issue in 3s and 4s, they are more of a symptom of the way that the game's economy is structured as others have pointed out.

It would probably be better if the income of territory points and/or caches was scaled down depending on the number of points present and/or player count. Caches could be fiddled with too, perhaps with increased build time or gradually increasing in income the longer they are in place (the same could be done with points too, making de-capping even more punishing).

But basically the resource mechanics are stretched to the limit in 4s and customizing unit costs based on map size or player count would increase the learning curve, I think, forcing players to memorize more values.

Jump back to quoted post6 Sep 2019, 14:30 PMRoastinGhost

I think that cache cost (as well as command point gain) should be scaled to be higher as the number of players increases.

Jump back to quoted post6 Sep 2019, 18:18 PMelchino7

Then you are messing up with teching. What about mp? Do you scale that as well.

What do you do with VPs? It's not only economy. Its army scale. You have up to 6 more players than intended in the map and you only need 2 VP (in most maps) to win.