Profile of elchino7

you underestimated the dmg from guards vs armor ...pgrens misses a lot...and hell they misses a lot more on far targets.

Reminder that this was nerfed during the last patch. Deflection took a nerf from 20 > 10. Unless you are hitting the rear, you are not doing as much as before.


The surprising factor with PGs, is that as long as they don't introduce more cheese/clutches (and actually nerf them) to other factions, they will keep getting better as they are solid.

Try reposting on the stage office, so a strategist can give you some advice.

Everyone talks about maps, but design wise, 4v4 can't be "balanced" when you are trying to add more players to a mode designed around 1v1. If the game was annihilation, that would be another story but when you have basically more players than VPs, strategic points which can't be attacked in the same way as smaller modes and fights which are generally about big pushes rather than singular units. This last point makes "Burst" damage, artillery/indirect and offmap way stronger than intended.

From 3v3+ onwards, there should be a shift in how the game mode plays, because making maps bigger, doesn't solve the problem of allocating more troops into it.

Now here comes the issue: EITHER you play 4v4 because you like playing with teammates and playing with a variety of units/commanders or you play 4v4 because you like to see a spam big amount of units on screen. If it's the 2nd, i guess you won't like my suggestion but you'll have to realise than you'll never have a "balanced" mode.

Option 1: learn from SC2. Archon mode. This distributes the amount of "micro" required, as now 2 players control a single army. This would also "help" matching low level players against better ones, if you allow to face 2 people vs 1. It should probably be optional for single players to face 2 players.

Option 2: keep the same amount of armies, but reduce the amount of popcap for 3v3 onwards. 4v4 could be balanced in a similar way to 2v2 if it has similar maximum popcaps per side. The hardest part would be balancing the teching times and upkeeps.


Lastly, matchmaker plays a bigger part in the quality of the games. If you don't play with a group (which makes it ez pz unless you magically face another team), then you are in games which are called "rainbow" games. If the game used metals for ranking, you would see bronze, gold, platinum and diamond on the same team.

thats not true, they nerfed advanced cancer and arguably patched the noobs out like that.

a commander that enforces getting the game to play itself isnt a good commander this is an RTS not a tower defense game that commander never should have been a thing let alone as strong as it was.

Stand fast was a stronger option. The old automatic howitzer barrage was really map and spawn position dependent.

One more example of inconsistant vet:

But that's not inconsistent. Expensive unit shooting at cheaper units = High amount of kills, low xp gain. Maybe it's outdated or i'm looking at the wrong files, but from this small list:

Calliope > Katyusha > Stuka > PW in xp requirements.