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?
Caches in 3v3 & 4v4
4 Sep 2019, 21:04 PM
#1
Posts: 469
4 Sep 2019, 21:20 PM
#2
Posts: 88
They should just limit all end tier teching tanks to 2 or 3 on the field per player.
4 Sep 2019, 21:28 PM
#3
Posts: 379 | Subs: 1
3v3s and 4v4s are the issue, not caches.
4 Sep 2019, 21:49 PM
#4
Posts: 4928
3v3s and 4v4s are the issue, not caches.
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.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
4 Sep 2019, 22:11 PM
#5
Posts: 1954
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?
Maybe just build your own caches? It's already a risk because early game it always means one less unit on the field.
4 Sep 2019, 22:12 PM
#6
Posts: 1954
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.
So all large maps have more resource points?
4 Sep 2019, 23:05 PM
#7
Posts: 5279
That's the appeal to team games. You certainly don't play them for the balance....
#stalinwept
4 Sep 2019, 23:37 PM
#8
Posts: 789
That's the appeal to team games. You certainly don't play them for the balance....
That’s true. But it’d be nice to play them because of their balance
Remember that 4v4 players can easily click 2v2 and play a balanced game. So why don’t they?
I think a lot of the players would be quite angry if 3v3 and 4v4 were to become balanced like 1v1 and 2v2. Some people don’t like to micro, and prefer to macro their units
Most of my ideas are probably bad, - but I try and share lots of them
and maybe some of them will be good an improve the game
One can hope
and maybe some of them will be good an improve the game
One can hope
5 Sep 2019, 03:28 AM
#9
Posts: 479
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.
5 Sep 2019, 04:29 AM
#10
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
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.
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.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
5 Sep 2019, 16:44 PM
#11
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
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
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
5 Sep 2019, 17:10 PM
#12
Posts: 818
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
Caches are easy to use in 4v4 but to get more than like 2 you need to be competitive in holding the map, more than that the points are usually vulnerable to harassment.
Giving OKW caches would go a long way towards buffing axis win rates in 4v4s. Presently preserving manpower with OKW is kinda pointless. Without osthwer on a random team to throw down at least 1 or two caches you can be At a deficit.
It doesn’t really make sense that OKW gets no caches since they started receiving full income and had vet 5 benefits normalized. It only really affects balance in team games not 1v1 as well.
 | Playercard of Hon3y | |||||||||||||||||||
|
6 Sep 2019, 14:30 PM
#13
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
I think that cache cost (as well as command point gain) should be scaled to be higher as the number of players increases.
6 Sep 2019, 15:39 PM
#14
Posts: 1954
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.
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.
6 Sep 2019, 16:28 PM
#15
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
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.
2 options. Either that or for the sole sake of uniqueness, you could make any truck deployed, be "upgraded" so they can act as Opel Blitz resource points. Which would be a callback to how originally OKW was conceived.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
6 Sep 2019, 16:49 PM
#16
Posts: 1153 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
6 Sep 2019, 18:18 PM
#17
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
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.
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.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
6 Sep 2019, 19:37 PM
#18
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I think that cache cost (as well as command point gain) should be scaled to be higher as the number of players increases.
It always boggled my mind why they implemented that in DoW series making team games somewhat balanced in terms of tech pace, but never in coh2.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
6 Sep 2019, 22:34 PM
#19
Posts: 1153 | Subs: 1
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.
Well, you are messing with teching, but the idea is that the increased number of points on the map would minimize or even negate the lower income of points or caches. I don't think the maps are big enough or with enough strategic points for a change to resource income like I've suggested to work but it's certainly something to be considered in CoH 3.
I don't think VPs are an issue; there can still be three of them to fight over (five feels like a lot in Lorch Assault but the map is limited in effective size due to the castle). You just have more units fighting over the same quantity of VPs when comparing 1s and 4s but how exactly is this an issue?
It might be worthwhile for Relic to explore limiting population cap at higher player counts (and potentially increasing player count), creating a more team-based strategy game. It might be something similar to the Total War experiment with the 10v10 matches where each player gets three units to command.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
9 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1000
Board Info
787 users are online:
787 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48726
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM