|
Its also firing at infantry units which generally have less models though. |
|
>>V1-V2 MG42
>>HT support
>>222 support
>>Drive right into arc
4th level of fail achieved. |
|
Can you specify tier/upgrade costs please?
Also, have you figured into your proposal, that current structure requires either T1 or T2 in order to build T3 or T4? |
1) Not many
2) Pretty much the same. It's hard for me to get a group together either way, so I usually go random. The times I've won with random players is when the other team sucked bad, or we just all happened to be on the same page, and the magic happened.
3) If by arranged match, you mean with a good team using voice, as Allies, maybe 2-3 out of 10 ? As Axis, playing with randoms, not using voice comm, closer to 8/10.
4) I think you mean UP ? If that's the case, then I will say that yes, in late game they are, with the notable exception of the IS/ ISU. By itself, however, it can't really turn the tables. This ties in with my point that at 15 mins or less, you can have a good, competitive game where Allies can definitely hold their own. After that, they get overwhelmed.
I think having said that, you also recognise your core problem...
You need teammates.
2v2+ is a team game.
Team is the operative word.
You need a functional team to manage.
As I pointed out, the more players you add, the less it is a about functional equal balance,, and the more it is about exploiting imbalance WITH your team, against their same efforts.
1v1 is different. Its the simplified core system.
In 2v2+, its no longer about primarily about balance, its a bout you and your team exploiting imbalance, in cooperation/communication/planning, better than your opposing team.
As long as you continue to random, you will have a bad time.
Its a teammgame in your chosen format. You need a team.
Im sorry, but thats how it is.
Voltar:
I dont think the simple solutions, are actually that simple as you presume them to be.
I understand your desire for a balanced 2v2+ system, but I dont think its possible.
They may look simple on paper, but I imaigne there arr coding problems involved that restrcuture a game built essentially to extend from 1v1.
Id rather suggest you focus on you and your teammates just improving cooperation/communication and planning out your contingiencies and matches, in order to beat your opponents who are doing the same.
In CoH2 teamplay, its not about balance.
Its about teamplay to exp,pit imbalance betternthan your opponent.
You are just gonna have to accept that. |
|
Nigel:
I added a section to my previous post for your consideration.
In addition to that, some more questions:
1) What % of your teamgames are with an arranged team?
2) What is your ratio of axis to allies matches in those arranged teams?
3) How many arranged matches have ypu won as either Axis/Allies?
3) Are you, or are you not, arguing that Allies is OP in 2v2+?
Beltfed:
Thats not helpful, and you are basivally acting yourself like the small group of 1v1ers you are disparaging..
I want to point out that its been a huge problem in balance discussion overall that people dont specify thr game mode they are talking about. A large part of antipathy on issues is due to that misunderstanding, not due to 1v1 antipathy towards 2v2+. Its just that the issues the two different groups have dont coincide, and its a frustrstion for both when discussing thr same units/abilities/factions from a completely different frame of reference, because its not the same thing at all.
I know its frustrsting that CoH2 isnt built for 2v2+, but you kind of have to accept it, though discussion is free ofc.
2v2+is primarily hinged on teamwork/communication/planning/cooperation.
Ironically, balance is less important there, than in 1v1. In 1v1, you cant leverage imbalace through a teammate.
In 2v2+, the purpose is to work together with teammates to unilaterally exploit balance better than your opponents.
Thats really what it boils down to. |
|
You made it an Axis vs Allies issue though, rather than a 3v3+ game issue.
Its a veiled "buff" Allies post, no matter how you cut it.
Do you play with established teammates that youhave planned with and communicate with on voice during match?
Edited to add:
Furthermore, its extremely common, and normal, to subjectively experience that its easier when you swap faction if you have been playing only one till that point.
This is for many reasons, such as:
- You already having overcome the initial learning curve for the game overall that you had to endure at startbwith initial faction. Your experience is colored by that. It WAS harder, but not because the faction was shit, but because you where still a noob.
-You understand the fsction you came from initially better when facing it, thanks to having played it. This is what makes playing all factions so important. Its easier to play against it, when you know it. Until you swtiched, you didnt really actually know what you where playing against intimately, only by proxy of engaging them.
-Swapping factions for the first time invigorates your brain. Its new challenges, new opportunities, new ways to achieve the goals. Commonly known as "beginners luck", somehow people playing a game for the first time (in this case from a new perspective, but with your old knowledge/experience added) can achieve some incredible results.
-Also, because you have no ELO as that faction (I think), you are playing vs generally easier opponents when you switch. I dunno the exact system for Coh2, but in DOw2 you needed 10 mqtches to get ranked, so you might meet noobs or complete pros. This leads to some players becoming xompletely frustrated, and others sailing throughout orgasmically. |
|
Its not even primarily a faction balance problem.
Its that the game is designed and built, from the ground up, as a 1v1 system.
2v2 can just about manage, but beyond that and it really starts to show it.
Its not even just the quadratic complexity involved in a total of 8 players interfacing, its the map design, the Objective/VP nature in this specific game iteration (as compared to SC2 for example), and ofc the Commanders which with their callins and abilities lend themselves to more and more exploitation the more players you add.
Overall, in terms of RTS, I dont think we are at the development/evolution stagein the genre yet where seriously multiplayer games are possible. Ironically though, its been possible in boardgames for a long time, but that is due to a turn based nature, which RTS is not.
Its extremely complicated to create such a 4v4+ realtime strategy, and even moreso to balance it. Imo RUSE and SOASE (Sins of a Solar Empire) are the two that have pushed the envelope the most on that. Both involve a macro and micro scale. Both have also enormously pushed the interface design. Ultimately, I think the flaw resides though in all players basically doing much the same thing. Though their decisions sre different, they sre still playing the "same game". My point in that being, that for a more evolved RTS teamgame, each player should have a spexific and different role within the team, much as we do in sports for example, and also in RTS with "classes".
Know what I mean?
Anyways, in coh2, 2v2+ relies on cooordination, communication, teamplay, and deliberate exploitation of balance against your opponents same. Thats the best you can do here. The game does not systemically support the format much, so make the best of tge above, and try to roll into 2v2 max. The more players you add, the more teamowrk is required, but only for one reason: inorder to exploit balance in agame that is not balsnced in that format. Its not only not balanced, but the whole game isnt built for it. There is no even battlefield at 3v3+. Given equal micro (if even that is necessary, which in some cases it isnt), 3v3+ is all about teamwork/coordination inorder to exploit imbalance better than your opposing team. Thats what it is, when you boil it down. So dothat. Consider that the challenge.
And if you are playing random team, sorry, but you will lose. If you dont want to build a team and put in the work, come join us in 1v1.
Its not arrogance to state that. Its just how it is. |
|
I dint know about that.
But yeah, Relic games are not designed/built/balanced for 3v3+.
When you start adding that many players, there are things that really need to have been considered right feom the start.
It really cannot be overstated enough how completely different games 1v1 and 4v4 are.
Though Im a 1v1 guy myself, Ive read many posts from 3v3+ players, and tend to agree that it certainly is a large playerbase, and potentially a better "future" in terms of RTS genre development. But, its also much harder to design and balance, especially the more factions you add.
Even at 2v2 already, the game changes immeasurably, for a multitude of reasons and factors.
Id urge 3v3+ players to try and see id they cant make do with 2v2 instead.
Better that, than constantly frustrating themselves on a pipedream of balance for those modes.
There is still the teamplay element, and balance is closer to its core 1v1 design in those. |
|
I wouldnt hold my breath for any real 3v3+ balance.
Relic has never, in any of its releases, cared much for it.
Its just how it is.
Not that there cant be discussion on it, but Relic just have never built their games that way.
Same trend for 1v1 oriented balance has been a recurrent and persistent theme in all their releases and subsequent balancing.
Id strongly urge those who for some reason dont want to play 1v1, to focus on 2v2.
That is near enough for perhaps somethinf to be done, and you dont have to suffer and be frustrated by 3v3+ systemic imbalances. |
Thanks for proving my point.
Quite often its those who are resolutely and egocentrically convinced about their own moral quality, without ever questioning it, who make the worst trolls and most toxic opinionators.
The famous irony and hypocrisy of treating people you dont like by a different standard, because somehow in their minds they "deserve it", and therefore acting badly towards them is justified, even though that bad act is in and of itself toxic.
But who cares, cos Im good and moral, right?
That means I can behave wrongly and immorally myself towards people I dont like, right?
Nope.
Guess what. You are yourself the shouting kettle yourself, and the pot aint listening or guilty fornyour own behavior.
Here you are now, out of the blue, trying to start a fight by trolling, with an image no less.
Also, gj on ignoring the actual formative long post I made in this thread!
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
