|
As have previous argued 1v1 trickle balance fails for because teams game are different to 1v1. I suggested the team games have to be forced to be played like 1v1 by changes to the team maps.
I put forward that map changes are the only way to force team games into line with 1v1 as the map attributes are the only way to effect balance with the trickle up balance approach.
I doubt Relic will create separate profiles for team game balance, they believe in 1v1 balance trickle. Map changes are the only attributes which can effect balance outside the unit stats. I have not done any map building for CoH2 but if I remember correctly from DoW2 population cap and resource income can be linked to maps. I am not sure the value of points in the builder can be change, naturally it would seem it should.
I have made previous arguments in other threads stating if Relic have no interest in looking at the balance of team games they should release to the community through modding. Team games are popular and undermining the balance undermines the community confidence and commitment to the CoH franchise. |
|
tl;dr: Trickle up balance doesn't work because 1v1 are played differently from team games. 1v1 balance is around dynamic map control, micro intensive isolate fighting, constant unit repositioning and teching choices. Team games focus on position fortification with little in map dynamic leading less micro intensive battle for defenders. Factions and tech influence the ability fortify or break positions. Team maps need to be refactored by removing key focus points and increasing the number low value points forcing to players spread out if 1v1 balance trickle up is to work.
All commentary is based game experience and observations of various styles. There is no data that can be reference. It is a opinion and should view as such. Subject to change based counter relevant counter arguments. Also this has limited proof reading... too tired will come back to it later.
It is my opinion that trickle up balance is failing concept for team games. The balance of 1v1 is around fluid map control and isolate pockets of fighting. There is a larger focus on balancing the micro to win small engagements early to mid game and managing larger combined arms fights late game. In 1v1 is about dealing with pockets of fighting across the map requiring careful and rapid thinking about the positioning of units for flanks, support and point capture. The mid game is about careful choices of tech to establish better control of the map. Choices such as if light armour for rapid redeployment to contested points is better option then quick deployment to heavy armour base of the current game flow need to made.
Team games is about control of 1 or 2 points at any given point of the game. Early game it is about control of the fuel, late game the VPs. The opening minutes of teams game often see the pairing of players to focus on single points on each side of the map. Early game the balance is working (sorta... *cough* kerbel) in some respects as the number of units in the engagements are limited and flanks and positioning plays a roll. Often these opening minutes decides which side controls the point for the rest of the game. After control is established the fortification phase begins with units focus on fortifying positions. This includes bunkers and short fall-back positions. Some factions are better at fortifying then others. Once fortified there is a little reason to venture out other then to harass attacking units or points, this easier to do when you have a short fall-back position (hello forward hq). It also easier for certain factions to breakup fortified positions with their toys (*cough* 7 min stukka). There is no real tactical reading of the match, it more often about holding the point till big boys can come out.
Lack of dynamic map control and fortified high value points leads to lob sided teching and armour presences. Once armour appears it easier to control the fortified positions.
One thing is clear, it takes more skill and micro to break and take a fortified position. Defenders don't find under as much pressure unless they ganged up on. Taking on fortified position requires coordinating, flanking, timing and cooperation. Defending require much less micro as the reposition distance is confined to fortified position. (Also have a feeling that certain factions require more micro to manage in order to win the game then others but without data I cannot say for sure.)
One also notes easier for certain factions to defend against assaults with better suppression tools, AT and long range inf damage.
The maps of team games encourage blob tactics and fortifying, the complete opposite of 1v1 where tactics like that cause you loose the game. If trickle up balance from 1v1 is going to work then team games have to be forced to be played like 1v1. This means spreading troops out to invoke more pockets of isolated fighting requiring micro and skill to manage. I believe the maps have to be refactored to this end. There has been suggestions to reduce the resources income but this does little to reduce the issues of point focus. The maps have to change to forces players to spread out and require reposition in order to repeal incursions of back capping. The maps should also encourage over stretching assets to gain the advantage over the enemy side.
One thing to note about team game maps is that there is only marginally more capping points then is in 1v1 maps. This means team players don't have focus on maps control with the majority of their forces, rather can use them control key points. 1v1 balance requires fair amount assets committed to taking and retaking points, certainly not the case with team games.
If 1v1 trickle balance has any change of working team game maps should have a much higher density of very low points and no high value points forcing players away from fortifying positions. Force players to stretch their forces to gain the advantage and make over commitment to a single point a burden rather then an advantage.
I have also been wondering if reducing the pop cap would help by forcing players to think carefully about tech choices. They would have to read the field and pick assets based field condition. It would also force players to be more careful with their units as a loss in units is a loss field presence to much greater extent. Resource income would have to be adjusted to reflect the popular cap. It would also require player to work closer together to get an improved combined arms approach.
|
Thread: 4v419 Sep 2014, 12:44 PM
I would start by saying I really enjoy the games Relic makes and especially the CoH/DoW2 games. There is however some comments I would like to make about the balance practise. The following arguments are based on 700+ hours experience, there are no real accessible data to justify the arguments so must be viewed through player experience. (This is in it's self would be argument for the community to have access to game generated data collected by Relic.)
The current 1v1 balance ethos is damaging to team game play-style as it is. The current team games sees fortification of key strategic ports with a focus of forces drawn to these points. This is converse to 1v1 where the over committal of forces decreases map control and ultimately a loss in resource income. Previous patches expected a certain level of unit control and player cooperation to capture the strategic points in the opening minutes of the game. Complete control of points where normally decided between the 5-10 min mark entering the fortification phase of the points. Early control of of these points has swung in favour of a certain faction due to a particular unit's ability to rapid redeployment and to rapidly suppress the enemy's early attempts to control these points. The balance changes where to improve an underperforming unit in 1v1 but has had an untended effect of easy early control of key points in teams games. Whether the balance change impact was considered for team games is unclear. Ideally there should not be any one go to form of opening to ensure early success.
Teams games often see quicker teching and build up of forces due shared resources and locked resources points. This is something that is not seen in 1v1 unless there an uneven match in skill. The 1v1 ethos creates a dynamically swinging flow of map control and thus fluctuations resource incoming. Swinging map control is seen to be much less in 4v4 games, lines are often drawn early in the game. Sharing resources in itself is not a problem as both sides have the ability but with one side to having the ability rapidly control and thus lock down strategic points undermines a balanced level of teching/build up forces. Additionally the sharing of resources has negated the disadvantage one side had in reduced in fuel income which limited their ability to field strong preforming units early on in 1v1 games.
Substantial losses a by player in team games can be countered by savvy teammates to fill gaps caused by lost units giving time to recover. Substantial losses is a death blow in 1v1. Experience players can carry less experience players to the late game where one side has particular advantage with heavy armour. Consolidated heavy armour can be very difficult to counter and one side often requires much more team mate coordination then other side in order to counter the armour threat. This problem was enhanced by changes to improve an unit's performance in 1v1.
These three arguments are a bases to a discussion that 1v1 balancing ethos is damaging to team game approach. Although the above arguments will have counter arguments to a lesser or greater extent they are only to demonstration how team games are often played out and the effect of the current balance approach has on this.
It has been suggested that team game balance is impossible as other RTS have the same problem. I put forward that is because RTS are exclusively balanced around 1v1 with influence from 2v2. If the game was exclusively balanced for team games there would be certainly an improvement in team game experience.
I pose a question. Why exclusively balance around 1v1? In some RTS games where 1v1 extremely popular and leads to massive tournaments of huge cash prizes focus on 1v1 is important. I don't believe this is the case for CoH2, and without access to data I suggest this unlikely to be the case for a long while. Relic's continuing revenue for the game is driven by reoccurring dlc (the merits of which can be discussed elsewhere). This reliance requires a large active and happy community. My understanding (again without data) is that team games are the most popular form of consumption of the game. If this is true It makes sense in my mind to carter to the majority if it is relied on for continuing support for further revenue streams.
Catering to the massive could be achieved in one of two ways. The first approach could be to change the focus of balance to team games forcing players to cooperate more closely to achieve victory and improving the satisfaction of the team experience, this may require a massive think of the game approach. This unlikely to happen due to an ingrained tradition that 1v1 should be the primary concern of RTS. Relic has always been a company to do new and exciting things which make them their games so attractive. My hope there would be some thinking outside the RTS box when it came to team games, make cooperation core to the game.
The second approach is to allow the community to do it's own balancing through mod support and the Steamwork shop. The team balance mod could be sold on the workshop to Relic's benefit and also support the modders. In this case there must be strong support by Relic by allowing mods to search through auto match system. Only allowing custom games to support modding would undermine players will to look for games.
tl;dr: Conjecture and speculation based on experience with out access to data suggests the current 1v1 balance ethos breaks current team game play-style based on 3 arguments; team-games are fortification of key points, rapid teching and sustaining losses. Under the impression that team games the most popular form of the game, focus on 1v1 balance is at risk of undermining the larger community and thus a revenue stream. Suggested a refocus on balancing to appease the majority or facilitate community balancing through modding. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
