Profile of Rosbone

They probably aren`t aware that 4v4 is the most popular playmode considering which community members are working with them. They are all 1v1 guys AFAIK. The likes of DevM or AE (1v1 tournament foucsed).

Maybe

Relic should have all of the stats. I have heard community members say Relic has their own stats they follow.

Maybe they thought, if people get bored with 4v4 they can play 2v2. So they made more 2v2 maps?

Or maybe they focused on smaller maps (1v1, 2v2) since they are faster to make at a high quality?

Or maybe they think 4v4 maps are hard to make since DevM, Tarnation, et al dont play high level 4v4? Maybe they seem easier to me since 4v4 is all I play.

EDIT:
I am pretty dumb and seemed to get some good results in 4v4 mapping with some help from top players. Maybe Relic could have reached out to me? Oh thats right, they never did. They didnt even have me look at Coh3 before release. Didnt see the maps, the editor, etc. Didnt even know it was a thing until it was announced.

Just kidding, I was looking at current map stats for 1v1 and stumbled across these stats. Usually Red Ball and Hamburg take turns in the 2nd place spot. 2,3,4 all jostle around. I just got lucky and have no idea what I am doing.

5. VP tick rate forcing players to keep field presence for the entire game and therefore punishing dynamic attacking gameplay (keep 3-0 vp tick rate, slow down 2-1 VP tickrate)

I am just trying to understand the whole thread idea. And I want to give Relic as much latitude as possible.

It seems as though the forward reinforce is in response to the faster tick rate. You cant retreat your army as often and still win games. You need forward reinforce.

And faster games means people can queue into games faster, etc. So in theory, the Relic design has good intentions. Maybe even makes sense. They could even be rewarded for trying something new.

Since they have not fixed the VP rate yet, this could be when John says "we want to let things cook a little and see how they play out". Maybe they are thinking about it, but waiting.

If this is the situation, and not that Relic is "dumbing down the game" for console players, some of these ideas seem pretty good to me. Hopefully relics "waiting" is not "we want to see how it plays out on console before fixing it". Because, that could be a long time from now. And I have the weird suspicion Relic knew blob wars would be the meta. Which leads me to think nothing is fixed until after the console release.

The slower Time To Kill (TTK) also helps units fall back from fights. To me this is a good idea to keep units on the front lines. I also like slower TTK so that bad internet is not the deciding factor. Top players are not happy about it, since, it negates cover and units are not punished when a superior play happens.

I like the ideas of:
- No auto reinforce on forward trucks.
- Slowed Reinforce in combat.
- No reinforce unless in owned territory.

And would also like to see:
- Inf suppressing after MG suppression like in Coh2. This rewards good micro on the MG and support infantry.
- Larger AOE for tanks, mortars, etc or more anti blob arty like Katy, Werfers, etc. This could help weaken blob health and your support infantry can pick off the weaker units, thereby punishing blobbing.
- Units taking more damage when retreating (as opposed to falling back).

Having the reinforce slowed and behind the lines would also encourage each player to have an MG to cover their ambulance. Again reinforcing strategy and forethought as opposed to blind zerg tactics. Push your units up to fight then draw them back under MG support to heal and attack again.

In time the TTK issue needs adjusted. I fear it would take Relic months to adjust all of the damage profiles, etc. So I dont expect to see it soon.

Hi, Rosbone here... you know... The Devils Advocate....

If Relic really is all in on making a console port, that would mean they developed the game to work the bad way it is now. And that would also mean, they will not be fixing this issue anytime soon if ever. What are the odds on this scenario? Asking for a friend.

Maps is the way to reduce the discontent between the players.

I like your thinking

To me the next patch is critical. With the two blunders they have made, bad release then game store, this next patch could start to turn things around.

I was leaning towards a large patch that fixes a lot of things. But this will take some time. Some things they plan to fix may not pan out in time. This would make the large patch be smaller which may be taken as Relic being lazy, not caring, etc. Since it will take more time, players may disengage further from Coh3 and move on to some other game.

Some people may like smaller patchs more often. Players get excited by patches. So getting a decent patch once a week may be well received by the community. If I was Relic I would make a video saying we will be posting a patch every week. Since player numbers are down, posting a patch every few days would really keep players engaged. They will want to be playing when the patch hits.

I am curious what the community would like? What do you perceive as better?