|
It's a balance thing as well though.
The grenades are very effective with a full squad. However, your opponent can reduce its effect by shooting down members of the squad, making them waste munitions.
Also, when do you make the check for squad member count? Many people queue up the ability ahead of time, and there is also a wind up animation where the squad can lose men. Then, there's network propagation and input lag. How many times and how often do you check for this one ability? Each time you do a check adds some overhead. People are already complaining about the framerate and input lag.
A few apps and database programming is nothing like complex, real-time, high interactivity game programming.
Not saying that this is acceptable, I'm just pointing out that game development is not as easy as people make it out to be.
A random guy posting something that seems easy in terms of business app programming does not make him suddenly capable of programming in the advanced world of AAA game programming. |
|
Then there's the damage spread and individual death. How much straight damage does the G43 do over the SVT?
The LMG will target a soldier and keep shooting him until he drops. And if he doesn't drop in the first burst, he'll take so much damage that he can be dropped by normal rifle fire.
The G43 really only has the same damage as a rifle, but has higher DPS from range, accuracy, and rate of fire (a combination of stats). But, I'm not sure of how targeting works so I don't know if G43s will switch targets after taking a shot.
Every time a man dies in a unit, that unit's DPS drops. One of the big strengths of Grens is their ability to quickly kill a soldier at long range to gain an advantage. |
|
I'm a primarily Soviet player, and even I want to see their mines be more useful. |
|
So how does doing every task more poorly not indicate being worse at multitasking? Doing a poorer job overall is still a poorer job. Which means mistakes during actual play.
"It's just how it is" is pretty much a cop out answer. We should uphold developers to a bit higher standard where appropriate. Not to mention starting out with a better grasp on large team mode balance from the beginning will help make the overall task of balance easier over the course of development.
"It should," is the proper answer. No mode, or player base, should be left out in the cold. And to be frank, while Relic's games are popular over the long haul, the numbers still aren't amazing by modern standards. It's these things, along with technical issues that bring their games down.
And for the most part, Relic has actually done a lot to try and keep the balance at larger team modes. There's changes in patches that directly affect team games more than 1v1. However, there's only so much you can do without either creating a separate set of unit stats, or modifying the modes themselves. I think modifying the team modes is a more reasonable option.
Don't try to pull the scope and limitations. With proper scaling you can achieve pretty good balance in large team modes, main problem is many designers get too hung up on old ways of thinking in regards to RTS games. You don't need to pile on the same number of units you normally get in 1v1 and 2v2 onto every single player in 3v3 and 4v4. Sometimes less is more.
And it's still a missed opportunity, because Relic chose not to try this route early on. Just looking at the after market success of The Last Stand from DoW2 is an indicator. Also looking at the team based games that are dominating the market now, it's definitely a missed business opportunity. |
|
Not misses, but what individual entity the soldier fires the weapon at, where the damage is applied.
Squad A firing on Squad X with regular rifles. What do they fire at, where is the damage concentrated in a squad to cause early deaths.
Easy enough with cannons and mortars since that's just where the round hits.
But I'm trying to figure out if stuff like the LMG spreads out the damage like a squad weapon, or if it really is applying all of its damage to just 1 soldier. And, if it will continue firing at the same selected target. |
|
Anyone who says that large team modes are inherently balanced is being short sighted. Anyone who says they should never be balanced is expecting too little.
3v3 and 4v4 are game modes like any other. It takes other methods to balance it, but it can be done. Likewise, if you release a game with those modes available, you should properly balance it.
It's like saying all those MOBAs or smaller RTS games out now with 5v5 should never be balanced because they have people on teams.
While some do play team games for running around with lots of units, and I do as well, I still find myself wanting something better.
I think it's a missed opportunity for a more interesting game mode that's focused on really good teamwork between teammates.
Let's face it, there's a lot of micro and multitasking in RTS games, and human brains aren't really built for multitasking. It's actually been proven, and those that say they're better at multitasking have been shown to be worse most of the time. This leads to all those mistakes you see even expert players make.
Now imagine a new 3v3 and 4v4 (or 5v5+) geared towards a bunch expert players working in very tight coordination, but with the units that we have now.
Not a MOBA, since those are overdone. But a smaller amount of units controlled by each player, but each player able to fully micro every unit under his command. That would lead to a lot of really awesome fights where you see a lot of perfectly executed attacks, counter attacks, and more.
The replays and casts coming out of something like that would be incredible.
In fact, I believe there were some good CoH1 mods out there that focused on this kind of game. |
|
On the other hand, a well supported bunker is actually a tough nut to crack, being an uninterruptable source of damage and suppression along a corridor.
Some players don't rely on bunkers to stop things, but rather count on delaying enemies enough to bring up the support.
But most bunker spammers I see tend to leave nothing on the field and go straight to tanks once the bunkers are down. They are quite surprised when a single AT Gun quickly bursts through the layers of bunkers, then with the vet from doing that starts killing his rushed tanks that have no infantry support. |
|
Yes, for the new patch. Technically it's happening today now. Starting at 3pm PDT (1500 PDT or 2200 GMT) when the servers go down for a scheduled maintenance. |
|
I agree, things get out of hand too quickly in team games.
Small pacing or balance issues multiply out of control.
Another part of the issue is that small lapses in map control balloon into larger advantages for the controlling side. It's become a practical requirement for people to send their first unit straight into buildings near fuel because of this.
Although, the solution might not be to alter the current modes, but instead create some maps geared towards really tight and concise team play. Where the more limited unit and resource counts reward teamwork more. A kind of mode that you could have groups of expert players working together in a kind of coordination that's more than grouping up large numbers of units together for a push, or timing abilities to be all used one after another. |
|
Responses to BabaRoga:
Well, here's the thing. I do think there should be some way to get in games that is lobby-like, but definitely not like the old disjointed lobby system. If not solution can be found, I'd much rather there be no lobby system than something that doesn't work as well as possible.
The friend invite and custom games system is a way to bridge that gap. You just have to get used to having more people in your friends list, to help keep things organized, you can tag them as CoH2. The problem for some, not you, but some toxic people is that it'll be hard for them to make those friends.
Another method is to use Steam Groups, create a generic group and use group chat. Then you can create parties to go into custom matches from within that chat.
However, I still believe that all players should be directed to automatch first and foremost.
And figuring out how to allow some kind of lobby, while still making sure as many people use automatch as possible, and aren't idling on the server getting into trouble or being toxic, and instead are contributing to that positive lobby experience. Well, that's the toughest part of multiplayer game design.
It's a bigger problem that just adding in lobbies, even if Steam/Valve had support for it this very moment, it would still be an issue that would prevent or delay its inclusion.
The biggest online multiplayer games out there spend a lot of time and resources doing that very thing. League of Legends literally has psychologists on the payroll coming up with schemes to promote more positive play, including both positive for good behavior and negative reinforcement for bad behavior.
And it costs money and time to get such systems in place, CoH2 may not be big enough to warrant that effort.
Nullist: Sorry, what's that? Can't hear your arguments over the sound of all that hot air escaping from your head. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
