Login

russian armor

[Relic Must See] Key Balance 1v1-4v4

30 Dec 2015, 03:27 AM
#21
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 967

This is not the tipical thread talking about nerfs or buffs, I just wan't to throw some ideas that will make you think... and the final purpose is to balance the game in all modes (1v1 to 4v4). These ideas could be implemented in a private beta test. And at least I need someone from Relic Staff to read it or write here [Kyle my friend, you are my namesake!]

1-Map resources limit/scaling:
It is well known that 1v1 maps usually have less resources than 4v4 maps(as well as 2 fuel and ammo points, most of the maps are limited to 10 standard points specially 1v1 maps).
10 std points (arnhem,angoville, semosky,moscow,rails and metal,etc)
11 std points (steppes)
12 std points (angermuende, ecliptic fields, hill, lanzerath,etc)
13 std points (refinery)
14 std points (General Mud)

The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.

2-Handheld rocket weapons aim time (Bazooka,Panzerschreks).
I think the role of the rocket weapons was not to seek for tanks and destroy them, they were used for deffending from vehicles. Right now, either USF ,WERH and OKW (or RUS with partisan) can blob a big amount of squads and Attack move. This "strat" works great against light and medium vehicles making them useless in mid late-late game. P2 Lucht suffers from captain, medium tanks suffers from volk blobs with shreks. some AI tanks can't deal with blobs or require a high amount of micro when the blob requires no micro.
What I think it should be done is, increase the aim time of a bazooka and reduce other reload values to make the time between rockets the same as it is now. You can increase the far acuracy to compensate for that but this will make A-move blobs much easier to kite while remaining the same in case of tanks penetrating your territory. adding aim benefits when green cover or garrison could be fine as an ambush benefit.
I think light ,medium and AI tanks will benefit from this feature and will make blobing more useless requiring to combine arms (raketen, AT guns, jacksons, Jagdpanzer) will be needed to "hunt" tanks.

3-Suppresion:
There a few issues regarding this:
3.1- mines:
I think mines should have a suppresion radius for infantry as it had in coh1. This will also stop a flanking attack giving you the time to relocate your mg's , and stop the damaged squad avoiding to trigger more mines in the path with the result of a full wipe.
3.2 Mobile arty weapons should have suppression as Pwerfer does (I'm not going to talk about Pwerfer damage, just the suppresion). This will help to stop blobs, in case of OKW stuka when missing the target it'd be nice to deal some suppresion in a radius, (at least yellow suppresion) same with Kat, that will make the units more prone to retreat because right now after the first salvo, hey can move freely out of the rockets area. (UKF base arty can benefit from suppresion sice it's damage is not significant so it can be used for creating a suppresion area to stop infantry pushes)
3.3 Grenades range when in suppresion.
It is not fair to be naded when a units comes frontal to you MG , got suppressed and it nades you or throw smoke. I think that all the yellow suppressed units should have a 50% range reduction in grenade/smoke, this will avoid single units raiding an MG frontally. You can still throw smoke to help a second squad to approach but you won't be able to smoke the MG to nulify its position.

4- The design of big maps.
Most of the big maps are designed much more long than width, that makes flanking less possible and OKW faction can have an early game retreat point supported with a strong structure that can be placed behind a wall/house making the faction not getting affected by the long retreat distances. USF/UKF have retreat points but they come mid-late and with a single raid you can destroy them easy. I'm not going to talk about if the medic OKW truck shouldn't be placed outside the base sector, Designing more wider maps will nulify that big advantage. A good example could be the map steel pact from Coh1, it was a fun map with a lot of battle actions due to the short retreat paths.


Spot on !
30 Dec 2015, 04:55 AM
#22
avatar of ZeaviS

Posts: 160

+1 for me too, great write up.
30 Dec 2015, 07:07 AM
#23
avatar of Gbpirate
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1150

I very much like these suggestions, Kyle. I like the idea with the handheld AT; it forces a reliance on mines, AT guns, and/or vehicle snares.

Map layout/design is definitely important in 4v4s. Contrary to popular belief, these team games are also very competitive at the high levels. Yes, there is a lesser focus on micro, build orders, etc., however, there is a focus on teamwork and on commander choices, build orders, capping orders that benefit on others. It definitely is important to balance 4v4, but, as Relic is doing - balancing 1v1s first - is the right step. Perhaps the easiest "hotfix" to balance 3v3/4v4 is to reduce the amount of resources given from each territory point?
30 Dec 2015, 08:29 AM
#24
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2015, 00:04 AMl4hti


nope nope nope

95% of coh2 players play 4v4s vs ai or vs real people.
People who play shitfests like sittard summer, scheldt and some other crap custom maps
they wanna see cool maps, explosions and tanks and balance doesnt really bother them
they are the people who pay relic all money from dlcs and usually are those retarded wehraboo people who spam forums with retarded balance arguments, like buff KT omg because krupp steel engines boohoo

Thats some realism for you :/


It's easy, remove those unbalanced maps from automatch and let them work on custom games. As it worked in coh1, its not a new formula.
30 Dec 2015, 12:29 PM
#25
avatar of Xutryn_X7

Posts: 131

There is a big difference between 1vs1&2vs2 vand 3vs3&4vs4...because of tactics and stragety.In 1vs1&2vs2 you need very balanced maps because one mistake it's gg and in this modes you need to be a great tactician and less a strategist to win.In 3vs3&4vs4 you need to be a great strategist than tactician because of blobs,small maps,few flanking positions.I would like more competitive maps than those open field maps that favor AXIS and those city maps that favors Allies
30 Dec 2015, 18:00 PM
#26
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1


The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.


Imo the issue has more do with the efficiency or cashes than anything else. Cashes return more resources the more player you have in the game. That means that in a 4vs4 the investment in cashes will payoff 4 times faster than in a 1vs1.

Instead of messing with the number of point of cashes one should start with lowering the return of cashes according to number of players, that would slow down pacing a bit and bring 4vs4 game closer to 1vs1...
5 Jan 2016, 00:26 AM
#27
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

Has anybody from Relic read something about this?
18 Jan 2016, 21:57 PM
#28
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

Yes... this is how I'm feeling...
@coh2 change requests at Relic
18 Jan 2016, 22:25 PM
#29
avatar of Diogenes5

Posts: 269

Relic is literally one of THE worst developers out there. I remember in vCOH how fucked up their balance was. 2.311 was perfect and then they kept fucking it up again time after time. Then Tales of valor came out and it was fucked for like 3 months.

It's been 3 years. nothing's changed. The game is still broken on a fundamental mechanical level with the built in unit lag. And there are so many exploitative strategies in all matchups thanks to the pay2win commanders.

Just give up. Relic is shit and you shouldn't expect anything from them.
19 Jan 2016, 01:19 AM
#30
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Relic is literally one of THE worst developers out there. I remember in vCOH how fucked up their balance was. 2.311 was perfect and then they kept fucking it up again time after time. Then Tales of valor came out and it was fucked for like 3 months.

It's been 3 years. nothing's changed. The game is still broken on a fundamental mechanical level with the built in unit lag. And there are so many exploitative strategies in all matchups thanks to the pay2win commanders.

Just give up. Relic is shit and you shouldn't expect anything from them.

You should start your own company and fix everything that's wrong with coh2 so we can all play your version!
19 Jan 2016, 04:43 AM
#31
avatar of Diogenes5

Posts: 269


You should start your own company and fix everything that's wrong with coh2 so we can all play your version!


There's already a better game. It's vCoH. It has almost better everything except 4 faction balance. It even has better graphics because at least you can keep it at 60 fps in that game easily on a midrange computer wheras COH2 has memory leaks after 1 match.
19 Jan 2016, 05:53 AM
#32
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



There's already a better game. It's vCoH. It has almost better everything except 4 faction balance. It even has better graphics because at least you can keep it at 60 fps in that game easily on a midrange computer wheras COH2 has memory leaks after 1 match.


Well my laptop runs it just fine. I played vcoh since it came out in 2006 and i still think coh2 is a big improvement. My previous post was pretty much just telling you not to trash talk a company thats doing their best.
19 Jan 2016, 06:05 AM
#33
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

This is not the tipical thread talking about nerfs or buffs, I just wan't to throw some ideas that will make you think... and the final purpose is to balance the game in all modes (1v1 to 4v4). These ideas could be implemented in a private beta test. And at least I need someone from Relic Staff to read it or write here [Kyle my friend, you are my namesake!]

1-Map resources limit/scaling:
It is well known that 1v1 maps usually have less resources than 4v4 maps(as well as 2 fuel and ammo points, most of the maps are limited to 10 standard points specially 1v1 maps).
10 std points (arnhem,angoville, semosky,moscow,rails and metal,etc)
11 std points (steppes)
12 std points (angermuende, ecliptic fields, hill, lanzerath,etc)
13 std points (refinery)
14 std points (General Mud)

The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.

2-Handheld rocket weapons aim time (Bazooka,Panzerschreks).
I think the role of the rocket weapons was not to seek for tanks and destroy them, they were used for deffending from vehicles. Right now, either USF ,WERH and OKW (or RUS with partisan) can blob a big amount of squads and Attack move. This "strat" works great against light and medium vehicles making them useless in mid late-late game. P2 Lucht suffers from captain, medium tanks suffers from volk blobs with shreks. some AI tanks can't deal with blobs or require a high amount of micro when the blob requires no micro.
What I think it should be done is, increase the aim time of a bazooka and reduce other reload values to make the time between rockets the same as it is now. You can increase the far acuracy to compensate for that but this will make A-move blobs much easier to kite while remaining the same in case of tanks penetrating your territory. adding aim benefits when green cover or garrison could be fine as an ambush benefit.
I think light ,medium and AI tanks will benefit from this feature and will make blobing more useless requiring to combine arms (raketen, AT guns, jacksons, Jagdpanzer) will be needed to "hunt" tanks.

3-Suppresion:
There a few issues regarding this:
3.1- mines:
I think mines should have a suppresion radius for infantry as it had in coh1. This will also stop a flanking attack giving you the time to relocate your mg's , and stop the damaged squad avoiding to trigger more mines in the path with the result of a full wipe.
3.2 Mobile arty weapons should have suppression as Pwerfer does (I'm not going to talk about Pwerfer damage, just the suppresion). This will help to stop blobs, in case of OKW stuka when missing the target it'd be nice to deal some suppresion in a radius, (at least yellow suppresion) same with Kat, that will make the units more prone to retreat because right now after the first salvo, hey can move freely out of the rockets area. (UKF base arty can benefit from suppresion sice it's damage is not significant so it can be used for creating a suppresion area to stop infantry pushes)
3.3 Grenades range when in suppresion.
It is not fair to be naded when a units comes frontal to you MG , got suppressed and it nades you or throw smoke. I think that all the yellow suppressed units should have a 50% range reduction in grenade/smoke, this will avoid single units raiding an MG frontally. You can still throw smoke to help a second squad to approach but you won't be able to smoke the MG to nulify its position.

4- The design of big maps.
Most of the big maps are designed much more long than width, that makes flanking less possible and OKW faction can have an early game retreat point supported with a strong structure that can be placed behind a wall/house making the faction not getting affected by the long retreat distances. USF/UKF have retreat points but they come mid-late and with a single raid you can destroy them easy. I'm not going to talk about if the medic OKW truck shouldn't be placed outside the base sector, Designing more wider maps will nulify that big advantage. A good example could be the map steel pact from Coh1, it was a fun map with a lot of battle actions due to the short retreat paths.


Agreed.
19 Jan 2016, 06:20 AM
#34
avatar of robertmikael
Donator 11

Posts: 311

The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.

I agree. The maps should be made so that the players in 4vs4 receives less fuel and ammo income. You don't need to have 2 fuel and 2 ammo points in 4vs4 games, because it generates a lot of fuel and ammo. Instead you can have only 1 fuel and 1 ammo point and place them in a highly contested area. And you can have less points where you can make caches.

For example in Lienne Forest you can remove the secure fuel points from the secure position in front of the base, and change them to ordinary capture points where you can build caches, and place just one fuel point in the middle sector, for example in the city in front of the most contested building where there are just a ordinary capture point. And also change the ammo point that is in front of the building in the middle sector on the left side of the map to a ordinary capture point. Like this! (I am sorry for the bad picture quality, but at least you can get the point).
19 Jan 2016, 15:11 PM
#35
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

I think they are focused in ESL tourneys and probably they won't make more efforts to please the current playerbase. Or at least the amount of resources dedicated to balance will be low, the cow has been milked. Mi$$ion Accompli$ed !!!

Who said that about "Da3d Gam3" ?
19 Jan 2016, 15:44 PM
#36
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3597 | Subs: 1


3.2 Mobile arty weapons should have suppression as Pwerfer does (I'm not going to talk about Pwerfer damage, just the suppresion). This will help to stop blobs, in case of OKW stuka when missing the target it'd be nice to deal some suppresion in a radius, (at least yellow suppresion) same with Kat, that will make the units more prone to retreat because right now after the first salvo, hey can move freely out of the rockets area. (UKF base arty can benefit from suppresion sice it's damage is not significant so it can be used for creating a suppresion area to stop infantry pushes)


I like what you say except this part. Mobile Artillery should be doing suppression at all. Because if today you see it as a nice feature vs blober, it also work strongly vs non blober. There is little micro in ordering a barrage on a unit and much more to dodge it, dodging a barrage only to be suppressed is not rewarding the player actually microing its units.
19 Jan 2016, 16:19 PM
#37
avatar of Night

Posts: 77

Banned
Completely agreed, super valid points you have there.
19 Jan 2016, 16:26 PM
#38
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jan 2016, 15:44 PMEsxile


I like what you say except this part. Mobile Artillery should be doing suppression at all. Because if today you see it as a nice feature vs blober, it also work strongly vs non blober. There is little micro in ordering a barrage on a unit and much more to dodge it, dodging a barrage only to be suppressed is not rewarding the player actually microing its units.


But we have units that fires all the rockets in a row (pwerfer = unavoidable) and others like Walking stuka (you can dodge it with infantry) or Kathiusha that fires salvos.

Adding a yellow suppression will prevent them to move freely while increasing the unit survability against small arms, it will punish blobs.
19 Jan 2016, 17:34 PM
#39
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3597 | Subs: 1

Don't get you, to me the suppression is not something mobile arty should deliver, there are other units dedicated for that.
Not to mention two factions haven't access to stock mobile arty which is already a huge gap in the balance.
19 Jan 2016, 19:32 PM
#40
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jan 2016, 17:34 PMEsxile
Don't get you, to me the suppression is not something mobile arty should deliver, there are other units dedicated for that.
Not to mention two factions haven't access to stock mobile arty which is already a huge gap in the balance.


Then it should be removed from Panzerwerfer.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

409 users are online: 409 guests
17 posts in the last 24h
44 posts in the last week
100 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44647
Welcome our newest member, Vassarh9
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM