What are you guys talking about " balanced for 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3"???
If the game is balanced for 1 vs1 then its balanced for 2vs2 , 3vs 3 and 4vs4 .
Yes you are right, it's the case in 99% percent of the games.
usually the more people there are playing on a map, the bigger the map is.
But RELIC in its infinite wisdom decided to make very narrow map for team games, especially 4v4.
-> it make sector lockdown with MG, blob and artillery spam the only way to win.
exemple : a Jadgtiger in 1v1 is not considered as OP, most people wouldn't even get it because it can be flanked easily and it's a lot of micro needed to keep it safe.
But on a 4v4, flanking is almost impossible so a jadgtiger can't be beaten from the front by common units and become OP.
That's another reason why you will never ever see static artillery in 1v1 when it's common in team games.
Resource inflation being an issue is a myth (read below). Maps are the real issue behind 4v4 woes. However, given that all maps have the same characteristics, we can't change that.
To reclaim some level of balance for that mode, I think we need to balance how some core mechanics scale. That's because minor bullshit in 1v1 become major issues in 4v4.
Popcap normalization
I don't care what tech level, or what perks a faction is supposed to have (e.g., tanks/infantry), or whatever. The moment that unit A performs better than unit B, A should, simply have higher popcap.
This is especially true, if those units have such a dramatic footprint on 4v4 that everything revolves around it. This is particularly true for the following units:
- Super-heavies (all of them)
- FlakHQ gun
Having a popcap-favoured faction incentivises the players to camp as much with that faction until they reach a critical mass of armour. When that moment comes, the winning faction can just a-move their units and win, leading to frustrating experience.
(veterancy discrepancies also fit into popcap discrepancies, since you can get so much more bang for your popcap if your units scale simply better).
Repair speed normalization
When one particular faction gets easy access to ridiculously over-the-top fast repairs, their allies also benefit from them, tipping off balance even further. The mode is already punishing enough for infantry.
Super-glue repairs make infantry even more irrelevant, as armour can be instantly repaired anywhere on the field. At the same time, infantry often has to retreat all the way back to the base to run back on the field and get reinforced.
The answer to this one is nerf everyone's repair efficiency to EFA levels.
Forward retreat points
Team-games last long. If for every retreat you make your infantry has to walk up half of the distance the enemy factions do, that immediately puts you in a position of great advantage.
Also, if it only takes a 20 second roundtrip time to break suppression, you wouldn't think twice before hitting retreat.
Basically, to address forward retreat points, we either need to remove them (super tricky), or make them more vulnerable (with the appropriate resource cost changes) to avoid sector lookdown. Compare MedHQ to forward assembly durability for instance.
Wunderwaffe
You all know which particular units over-dominate these modes, thus there is no need to introduce the Elefant in the room.
Nevertheless just with repair normalization, by increasing how long these behemoths have to spend in the garage after a failed attempt at their lives will already help balance things out. Attaching an appropriate popcap cost to those units will make it even better.
This.
Resource inflation being the issue behind unpleasant 4v4 experience is a myth.
All maps have an equal amount of territory and fuel points. This same goes for 1v1 maps as well as 4v4 maps. 4v4 just adds more players. This dramatically decreases the number of territory points that each person needs to capture. As a result, everybody is spamming "power units", armour becomes dominant, since you need only that much infantry to capture territory points, so on and so forth.
The moment a team gets pushed out of a territory point, the gains become instantly capitalised, a new MG line forms and it becomes impossible to harass. if the losing team doesn't get their shit together, this can easily snowball. In 1v1, it's a bit like musical chairs; you just smoke and flank.
The moment you take resource inflation away, something entirely new happens. You have manpower becoming more abundant, while fuel will become incredibly more scarce. MG spam will be able to lock down entire sectors. People will not be able to push through MG spam with anything but mortar (and emplacement) spam; that's a direct consequence of grenades becoming more scarse. So on and so forth.
Basically, if you take away fuel/munitions inflation, the game will revolve around an even more prolonged phase of artillery spam the likes you've never seen before.
Given that early game dominance will be dictated by (asymmetrical) access to mortar pieces, and given that those units will probably never be balanced "to the point", you're just adding a whole new level of pain for your 4v4 experience.
Nice to see someone else who understand the real problem.
This said, most of the people here will keep asking for balance change from 4v4 point of view and bitch when you don't do that.
The sad truth is that this game will never be 'fine' in most 2v2 maps and almost all 4v4 maps because of bad map design.
Even with a thousand balance patch, if maps stay like they are, you won't be able to fix this problem Smith.
Offtopic : i watched hans 5 minutes playing DOW3 yesterday and it looks like relic did exactly the same mistake making the team games a damn blob fest.
the real problem of team games is not the balance but the map, especially a few 2v2 and most 4v4 ones.
if they were more width and less narrow, there would be much more opportunity to flank and it would be somehow a 4 x 1v1 happening in 4 part of the map instead of the clusterfuck happening right now.
game could perfectly use the same balance for 1v1 and 4v4 if the map were OK, but in the current state it push people to blob / use arty or lockdown sector with MG42.
good luck killing 3 mg42 in early game with usf mortar, by the time it's done the german will have already secured the fuel for long enough to rape you with pzer4 & more.
(it's even worse with brits sim city or soviet maxim - 120 mm)
when you look at other games, STEEL DIVISION NORMANDY 44 per exemple, they simply use a defined map size for 1v1 ( let's say 1000 square killometer) and if you decide to do a 10v10, which is possible on that game, then the map size would be increased to 10x1000 = 10 000 square kilometer.
it works very well, but if now you compare the 1v1 map size with the 4v4 map size of coh2, especially the width, then you notice it's barely 2 times bigger resulting in this bullshit game.
to make custom commander, people use to add a custom button in one of the building and when you click that, it adds to the player the wanted commander abilities.
Why does stuka come with t2 when you got to reach 10cp to unlock calliope ?
Why does calliope is more expensive that stuka ?
This whining discussion could go for ever, that's called balance and each faction has pro & cons.
You got to see the whole thing before saying a faction or even an unit is OP.
But this kind of balance talk can't be done so easily.
If you are really bothered with it, i suggest you to take a closer look at the balance patch being done and the other incoming. The patch maker always want feedback on balance, but it needs to be more constructiv than that
Bitch please
♞【Lucky Strike】➽
le saucisson masqué
Relic Entertainment
