Profile of voltardark

Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2014, 19:00 PMKreatiir

Spamfest + axis late game, nothing interesting to see.

Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2014, 17:29 PMCannonade

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.

Jump back to quoted post16 Sep 2014, 12:10 PMBabaRoga

There are only 2 issues with 4v4

1. Automatch 4v4 never has 8 equally skilled players

Allies (read Soviet) are infinitely harder for less skilled player to use
Weak player on Axis side becomes threat with heavy tanks, weak player on allies side gradually becomes worse liability and harder to carry as match progresses.

2. It's a lot easier to abuse weaknesses or OP units in team games than 1v1

Both issues are to do with core army designs and that will never change.

Same goes for 2v2

If you want balanced (playable) 4v4 game, you have to find group of players with equal skill and play amongst eachother.
Its always been like that, even in COH1.
Play custom games with friends