5v5 or 6v6 automatch mode?

[jim lahey]

I want to see what the CoH brain trust thinks of the idea of 5 v 5 or 6 v 6 P V P matches. Is there a limit to the map size or game engine that would make games of this scale untenable? I know little about the physical constraints that would make matches this large impractical. Is this something you would be interested in?

[jim lahey]

Originally posted by Do your best:

This game is gonna be abandonware just like DOW3. Over a hundred relic devs got fired by sega.

Maybe not dude, I'm still optimistic despite the massive layoff. Maybe they needed to trim the fat, restructure and refocus their efforts to really tackle CoH3's problems head first?
We need to petition Relic to make matches of this size and scale a reality. Time to bring CoH into the 2020s. Can you imagine the absolute carnage of 12 armies battling over 5 VPs?

[jim lahey]

The two issues I can see are the low number or players to begin with. It's not exactly a large pool of people to be having these lavishly huge battles. The other big issue is with 4 v 4 there already is a huge issue with people dropping. It would only be exacerbated by a 5 v 5 or 6 v 6.

[Realm]

Originally posted by Do your best:

This game is gonna be abandonware just like DOW3. Over a hundred relic devs got fired by sega.

They lost a third of their staff. You don't need over 300 people to develop an RTS post-release, and it's better to downsize to something reasonable than to sink the company.

[I>U]

This depends on invitation system, mate. 4v4 automatch isn't that terrible in CoH1 because people don't share a battle-plan and can't communicate outside of chat. Though, it was the least played mode after it's introduction, as far as I'm aware.

Presets vs randoms in 3v3 and 4v4 of CoH2 is the great source of pure rage that will melt polar caps one day. Imagine your base, your howies, you heavy tanks getting *just the right* amount of off-map shelling syncronised or getting bombed non-stop by artillery, because presets can coordinate this too, creating constant danger zones.

I doubt Relic has resources to make "inclussive" team-automatch, like you have in unranked mode of SC2 now. Thus, not adding the invitations is the only way to make 5v5 and 6v6 automatch real.

Otherwise, custom games will always be plagued by presets.

[jim lahey]

Originally posted by I>U:

This depends on invitation system, mate. 4v4 automatch isn't that terrible in CoH1 because people don't share a battle-plan and can't communicate outside of chat. Though, it was the least played mode after it's introduction, as far as I'm aware.

Presets vs randoms in 3v3 and 4v4 of CoH2 is the great source of pure rage that will melt polar caps one day. Imagine your base, your howies, you heavy tanks getting *just the right* amount of off-map shelling syncronised or getting bombed non-stop by artillery, because presets can coordinate this too, creating constant danger zones.

I doubt Relic has resources to make "inclussive" team-automatch, like you have in unranked mode of SC2 now. Thus, not adding the invitations is the only way to make 5v5 and 6v6 automatch real.

Otherwise, custom games will always be plagued by presets.

Thanks I>U. This was the type of discussion I was hoping would develop. You bring up a great point about pre-made teams of 6 pros/friends playing against a team of 6 randoms. It would be an absolute nightmare for the random team. On second thought this doesn't sound like a phenomenal idea. The only way it would be fair would be to allow only pre-made teams or random teams to battle each other exclusively. There is just not the population playing the game to support this.
It still is a pipe dream of mine. I'd love to play a few matches of this size purely for the novelty... Dat scale doe lol . You are spot on though.

[jim lahey]

I'm still going to dream about the possibility!

[ShodaN]

The game doesn't even scale well for 3vs3 and 4vs4 as it already is. The major reasons for that are map sizes and capture point amounts.

If you wanted to have even larger battles, this would require more space to fight for or you get more infamous blobbing, simply because there is no room (in a literal sense) for good tactical play. Too many armies at once, that all require sensible cover positions and so on. So you need larger maps.

If you do that however, you'd also increase the distances your army needs to travel, which would require more options for logistics. Otherwise you break the balance between infantry, team weapons and vehicles for mobility reasons alone. A pack of vehicles from multiple players could just freely move around wiping one enemy player after the other, while lugging around infantry based AT to support your own team would be impracticle and too slow.

Secondly you'd need to scale down resource income per point or having more points of interest on the map, would lead to inflated income and a way different game pace. So why not just the same amount? Because having the same amount of points as a 1vs1, but many times the units to take and hold them, makes for usually very stale frontlines and rare cut-off situations, which in itself is a reason for inflated resource income.

For short: You want larger battles, you need to change gameplay fundamentals, which isn't going to work.

[jim lahey]

Originally posted by ShodaN:

The game doesn't even scale well for 3vs3 and 4vs4 as it already is. The major reasons for that are map sizes and capture point amounts.

If you wanted to have even larger battles, this would require more space to fight for or you get more infamous blobbing, simply because there is no room (in a literal sense) for good tactical play. Too many armies at once, that all require sensible cover positions and so on. So you need larger maps.

If you do that however, you'd also increase the distances your army needs to travel, which would require more options for logistics. Otherwise you break the balance between infantry, team weapons and vehicles for mobility reasons alone. A pack of vehicles from multiple players could just freely move around wiping one enemy player after the other, while lugging around infantry based AT to support your own team would be impracticle and too slow.

Secondly you'd need to scale down resource income per point or having more points of interest on the map, would lead to inflated income and a way different game pace. So why not just the same amount? Because having the same amount of points as a 1vs1, but many times the units to take and hold them, makes for usually very stale frontlines and rare cut-off situations, which in itself is a reason for inflated resource income.

For short: You want larger battles, you need to change gameplay fundamentals, which isn't going to work.

4 v 4 and 3 v 3 are a lot of fun though. They are less stressful and more forgiving then 1 v 1 and allow opportunities for teamwork and strategy. The mid to late game of a competitive 4 v 4 match is righteous.
Your first point makes sense, but for the 2nd why not proportionally scale down the resource generation rate so that it compensates for the more resource and manpower points? I don't think you are wrong, but I feel there could be solutions to overcome these issues.
I thought this was at least an interesting idea. I'm surprised no one else has shown any interest.

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

4 v 4 and 3 v 3 are a lot of fun though. They are less stressful and more forgiving then 1 v 1

That's a common idea I've seen countless times on CoH2s forums as well. But let me say this, it's all wrong. Teamgames are not inherently less stressful. Any stress you might not feel, is just transfered to your teammates as everyone needs to pull their own weight and addtionally needs to stay on top of the teams overall situation. There is more to keep track of and consider in those modes than 1vs1. They are also not more forgiving, since the mistake of one player can cascade into a disaster for the entire team. This goes double because you need to be able react to shifts on the battlefield quickly as it takes more time to transfer units to where they need to be.

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

and allow opportunities for teamwork and strategy.

So does 2vs2 and the scaling issues are not nearly as bad. Infact I think 2vs2 is the optimal game mode size when it comes to Relic games.

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

Your first point makes sense, but for the 2nd why not proportionally scale down the resource generation rate so that it compensates for the more resource and manpower points? I don't think you are wrong, but I feel there could be solutions to overcome these issues.

That's what I said. DoW2 did something similar, with resources per tick from points being different for each mode.

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

I thought this was at least an interesting idea. I'm surprised no one else has shown any interest.

The game is largely about small scale skirmishes and not so much large scale battles. People interested in the latter, will propably look elsewhere.

[76561199241541439]

apart from everyone trying to set excuses the reasson is real simple, they cant even release a proper game with 1v1 to 1v4 and you wanna see 6v6?
What a joke is like expecting VOIP in 2023 wich somehow aint more requested lmao

[jim lahey]

Originally posted by McDonald:

apart from everyone trying to set excuses the reasson is real simple, they cant even release a proper game with 1v1 to 1v4 and you wanna see 6v6?
What a joke is like expecting VOIP in 2023 wich somehow aint more requested lmao

But you mean to tell me if 5 v 5 was an option, you wouldn't be interested in playing it?

[Shadowphreak]

the editor allows for up to 18 players. However nothing over 8 players actually works. I'm sure someone with coding exp. can activate it through a tuning pack tho...

But as others said, many folks get lag with 4v4 games currently after playing 30-60 minutes.

[76561198271519776]

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

I want to see what the CoH brain trust thinks of the idea of 5 v 5 or 6 v 6 P V P matches. Is there a limit to the map size or game engine that would make games of this scale untenable? I know little about the physical constraints that would make matches this large impractical. Is this something you would be interested in?

what is this big team slayer from halo??? actually this sounds like actual fun and the amount of arty spam you'd see would rival a 4v4 COH2 game with 4 sovs running B4s

[jim lahey]

Originally posted by Strike Force Lightning:

Originally posted by the benchwarmer:

I want to see what the CoH brain trust thinks of the idea of 5 v 5 or 6 v 6 P V P matches. Is there a limit to the map size or game engine that would make games of this scale untenable? I know little about the physical constraints that would make matches this large impractical. Is this something you would be interested in?

what is this big team slayer from halo??? actually this sounds like actual fun and the amount of arty spam you'd see would rival a 4v4 COH2 game with 4 sovs running B4s

Seriously! The late game would be legendary. A mode this epic could showcase the improved graphics and destructive environment of CoH3. I think this feature would help people transition to CoH3 from CoH2. You never know, Relic may add it.

[Thatguy]

It would be fun but I believe Essence might limit the numbers to 8 total. When building spawn points and stuff you have to apply ownership to it. Normally its a drop down menu with hard text to choose from (1,2,3,4,6,7,8) yada yada yada. I could be mistaken. I don't know Essence as well as Worldbuilder.
I would love a epic sized map. Like 4 large maps in one, with 16 total players. 8v8 with each portion of the map being completely different, like a choke point bridge with a star with another star in a giant desert rolling hills section. Like epic battles on long frontlines split by villages with stars in them.