Profile of BeltFedWombat

I was responding to this, unless it is referring to Relic. In which case, my bad.

The point about cliques remains.

One serious cause of this, is your restricted internal boards. If you skim the cream of best posters off to a private board, you leave the public side in the hands of lower quality posters, and board culture and content takes a nosedive. I strongly encourage you to return our best posters back to the public.

Like I said to Quinn during the CoH2 beta eighteen-odd months ago, we need to honour difference. 1 v 1 is extremely important - I think it is the motherlode of the game in many ways. From that high-level scene cascades all sorts of interest, strategy and ideas.

And but...

CoH2 is meant to be enjoyed on many levels. For example, I am a classic 'hardcore casual' in that (a) I'm pretty stoked about the new Ardennes campaign and (b) I love and play a *lot* of 3v3 and 4v4 (for the reasons my friend Van Voort has already outlined above).

These two extremes are no longer compatible - using the same unit metrics for such diverse game modes is (arguably) limiting both.

I see this as an opportunity rather than a problem, though.

For starters, an elite 'Trial of Iron' 1 v 1 mode could be introduced with exclusive commanders and limitations. This would be *the* aspirational 1 v 1 tourney mode for our best players.

On the other end of the spectrum, a 'League of Generals' large game mode would unleash CoH2 into the gonzo death-fests large game players love. Balance it specifically for this. Have late-game units for both sides that would screw 1 v 1 (but it doesn't matter - they won't be *in* 1 v 1).

I genuinely don't understand why having specialisms for diverse play-styles can be seen as anything else than a boon for the game.

I really don't.

I hope Relic at least engages with us in a debate about a glaring problem with a game we all love.

People don't want realism but they do want verisimilitude. Fact - the Americans only fielded a tiny handful of Pershings (although I'm not troubled by them as a call-in unit eventually) but the problem is the general crappiness of the US tanks that *do* exist. Make the Sherman slightly cheaper and the Jackson slightly meatier and half the problem might disappear.

4v4 was never balanced nor competetive in any sense. COH was never about 3v3 or 4v4. Play 1v1 if you want the best balance and possibly game experience possible.

Wow. Just.... wow.

Okay, weird idea here, but why not change the stats for the different gamemodes? Like 2 different balances, 1vs1 has its own balances, while 4vs4 has different ones. Not major ones that would confuse you like different armor and stuff like that, but manpower costs for units, so it is harder to steamroll e.t.c.
In short, let 1vs1 be balanced, but change the team games sepperately? :/

It's not a strange idea it makes complete sense. When I put it to Quinn Duffy once, along with a special 1 v 1 elite mode, he said (politely) "I'm not making two separate games."