Profile of voltardark

This is where a lot of the hostility between 1v1/2v2 and 3v3/4v4 players comes from. Does focusing design and balance on 1v1 and 2v2 with some balance drifting up to 3v3 and 4v4 attract more players than focusing balance on 3v3 and 4v4 at the sacrifice of 1v1 and 2v2?

Historically speaking 1v1 and 2v2 attract more players to a RTS game than 3v3 and 4v4. Relic has already stated on the official forums that they realize this and will continue to focus their efforts on 1v1 and 2v2. The problem with 3v3 and 4v4, is that games are hard to cast with so much going on and is hard to watch with the clutter of 8 players' units. Tournaments are hard to run and organize due to having ot have 8 peoples' schedules line up. RNG can be more punishing in team games. If all 4 of you form a concentrated attack of infantry on one side a walking stuka/call-in arty/or Katyusha barrage could wipe the majority of your squads resulting in all of you having massive MP lose.

The game currently has more casual than competitive players and unfortunately the problem with casual players over competitive is that competitive players will stick with a game longer than casuals. Casuals drift more freely from game to game and this can lead to the game base collapsing, competitive players do play other games but they invest a significant amount of more time into this game than casuals. Balancing for casuals might see a small player base increase for a few months, but a year form now, the game will be dead and stale. Balancing for competitive players might hit the player base at first as the casuals get frustrated with the competitive players, but as tournaments and more videos start up the player base will thrive. Casuals will want to try being a little competitive and will play more to get better, competitive players will be practicing and when both of these groups need a break form 1v1 and 2v2 they will go over to 3v3 and 4v4 for some mass unit chaos.

Can 3v3 and 4v4 be more balanced? Yes, but will it being balanced at the cost of 1v1 and 2v2 help the game grow more? No.

I agree that the balance act of 3vs or 4vs4 must not disrupted the 1vs or 2vs2, but there are many proposed solutions on the table that should touch only the late elements that are not used much in those mode. anything that touch units that come at 10+ command points should be less disruptive for 1vs1 or 2vs2. Example, Selling/adding some US faction's commanders who are better suited for 3vs3 and 4vs4 would not upset the 1vs1 or 2vs2 game modes.( At-Armor specialist or Air superiority specialist with abilities gear toward the end game of 3vs3 or 4vs4 team mode.)


The balance is not that hard to rectify, but there are also many justify fears about it. But i think that if i would do it right, Relic's devs can also. They can do many things to balance the game without upsetting what is already balanced. All changes must be done in small steps and at regular intervals.

I would be the happiest COH2 players if i could switch sides and factions and have the same fun i had when i was doing it in COHO.

The last patch had been a good start toward balancing 3vs3 and 4vs4. But unit's versatility and commander's choice are still lacking and must be increase on the allied side to improve their fun factor and appeal. The auto-match should then be more even and the waiting shorter on the Axis side.

The community must be less emotive about balance and be more pragmatic. Those changes are needed and must be done carefully. The game will then improve for all.

P.S : I don't know anyone who play 4vs4 that is not competitive player. Everybody are trying hard to win and hate losing. COH2 is not casual players friendly, it's a niche game, it's a complex game made for people who like to work more with their brain. Maybe the campaign mode is more casual, (I known know, i never played it) but automatching is not casual in any mode. So i think it's better for all that we stop the casual vs competitive debate, it won't lead anywhere. A 3vs3 or 4vs4 balanced mode with equally fun factions to choose from, should be as much popular than 1vs1 or 2vs2, i can bet on it.

Let's have some faith in Relic, hopping that the waiting won't be too long.
Let's us then smile at the bright future that COH2 will have with more a united community.

Thanks.

USA faction Change to make the more appealing:

- Reduce the price of the BAR to equip to 50 mun.

- Add a light mortar more in the lieutenant building :
Production/reinforce cost: 230/20 manpower
Population cap: 5
Abilities:
Basic auto-firing -free
Fire smoke barrage - 5 mun.
Hold fire - free
vet 1 -10% setup time;
Vet 2 -15% Scatter -30% Ability Recharge;
Vet 3 +25% Range;

- Lower the captain's building fuel requirement at 65, but increase it's manpower cost at 240;

-Lower the Major's building fuel requirement at 75 but increase it's manpower cost at 270.

-Reduce the time the Sherman need to switch ammo type by 25%.

-Add Call CAP to Major instead of call air recon for 100 mun/120 secs cooldown : Will prevent one air attack or cancel one enemy recon. Last 30 sec. in both case. It must be called before an enemy raid to prevent it, but maybe called during a air recon to cancel it.).

-Add Call air recon to Captain at the same previous cost.

Hey guys.

I'm thinking a lot about how heavy tanks can be better implemented in the game, cause right now it's always coming down to getting that heavy tank and just watching it taking out units or tanks.

The major problem here is that it requires next to 0 skill to use these tanks.
A jagdtiger has 85 range, so it can easily take away allies armor without really having to do anything.
It auto-fires, so you just watch your flanks and grab popcorn.
ISU just plows away infantry without really any effort.

YES you have to watch your flanks and watch ofr enemy attacks, but c'mon guys, don't exaggerate that, it's bloody easy to use.

I think it should require more action from the player itself.
Auto fire on such big tanks who do major damage isn't a good thing imo.

So what am I really saying?

Heavies should not always be 'the way to go' in the late game, but should be a well thought decision because it should need more skill to handle these.

Possible examples

Make jagdtigers not auto-fire, but need more mouse-handlings to kill other tanks.
Make ISU have manual reload of 5 seconds, not to nerf it but to require it more skill.

e: I also like the idea of mobility & longer repair time. There is is no negative side in calling in a heavy, and these ideas would definitely help that.

I would like to know what other people have to say about this.

Thanks in advance.

Nice ideas !

Toning down the OKW faction is a good idea to bring back a bit of balance in 3vs3 and 4vs4 team games. But it should be done carefully and only in the aspects that are pertinent to those mode of play.

Example: I would considered only abilities or units that come at 10 or more command points. The only exception to this would be the Kubel, i would increase his setup time by 15% and reduce it hit points by 10%.

I would also bring the US at-grenade effectiveness on par with the Soviet one, becoming a global upgrade of T1, priced at 15% more than its soviet counterpart.

Thanks.

Thank a lot Kreatiir, i will respect you decision.