A Developer Independent Solution for Balance - Large Maps
Posted: 22 Aug 2015, 21:58
TLDR: Larger maps have the potential for "more balanced" and varied play.
I'm reposting to bring up a discussion on its own thread. I feel like the other one was lost in the an old thread. This is just copied pasted, if you read it already and know what it's about, no need to read it again unless you're looking for a refresher. I'll end up talking more in a second post, keeping "new" words separate.
I think the best way to balance maps is to just play on bigger ones. So, for 2v2's to play on a 3v3 map. For 3v3's to play on a 4v4 map (always with exceptions). This itself I think actually fixes a lot of balance issues people normally bring up. I'll go through the ones that come to the top of my head because I hear them often.
1. Too much arty:
I think it's not so much of "too much arty" as it is "too easy to arty". Right now, I think the "meta" is to rush to critical points on the map and hold them. Most of the time these critical points are high resource points or a building/"high ground" a force can easily defend and launch attacks from. The thing about the maps though, is that there is normally 1 critical point per pair of opposing players. So for a 2v2, there are 2 critical points and the game turns into something like two separate 1v1's each battling for their critical points. When there is only a single critical point that all fights revolve around, it's easy to just mark that point as an arty target. So, the same point gets artied over and over again, making it feel like there is "too much" and no skill involved. A player can safely fire into black fog knowing that the chances of hitting SOMETHING is very high.
Playing on a larger map creates more critical points, more ways of defending and attacking critical points, and allowing more places to dodge arty. This will make finding arty targets much more difficult and costly (via CD's or just flat MU sometimes depending on the situation).
2. Bunkers, emplacements, MG42's:
Same logic as arty above. Normally bunkers on single critical points stalemate a game. A lot of times Axis players can plop an MG42 in one spot and essentially cover the entire critical area. So, on a 2v2 map all it takes are 2 mg42's to cover the entire map with suppression, stalemating the early game. Allies normally make mortar pits instead of bunkers, but same situation of stalemating a game.
More map area to cover makes positional strategy much more difficult than the same place every single time (that house on rails and metal... that house on on reverse defense... that intersection on cherbourg... etc.). Making sure the MG's flanks are covered, facing the right direction, etc takes a lot more skill when there is more area to defend. Sun Tzu Art of War says (yes, I'm Asian and have read it) don't try to impede on an open field because the enemy can just walk around it. If the strategic area is wide enough, players are forced to make decisions. Is the cost of digging in worth impeding the enemy at this particular spot knowing they can just bypass this defense? For the attacker, is the defense emplacement worth attacking when I can just bypass and attack somewhere else (another Art of War reference)?
3. Axis Tanks OP:
Axis tanks are really strong and have always been a really big argument focus. The arguments are always the same, "The tanks are too strong" and counterargument "Just use more skill and flank it". The counterargument is flawed because there are MANY situation where there is literally no room to flank, especially when the emplacement stalemate mentioned above basically stops any units from skirting the sides.
Bigger map allows for more room to maneuver. Pretty simple.
4. One shot kill units:
Units like Scotts, StuH's, Stupas, Field guns, etc. are effective because of the narrow lanes. This is similar to the "MG42" problem I mentioned before but to a greater extent because these units are mobile. Now, I know these units have been severely nerfed and aren't as much as a problem as before, but there is the occasional complaint. The narrow lanes make blobbing unavoidable sometimes. There just isn't enough room to spread out (as the counterarguments would normally say).
The solution? More room.
5. Blobbing:
So blobbing can be annoying at times because it is a heavy concentration of power with volume on a single point (very Carl Von Clausewitz, yeah you bet I'm studied on different texts of war). Blobbing is effective because defenses are sometimes forced to be confined on a single spot to get rushed. It should be a strategic choice to make a defensive line thin or loose depending on the method of attack. A large map gives players that option. More building space so to speak.
So I'm tired and will stop talking about what large maps fix. Instead I'll start talking about possible concerns players would have with large maps.
1. Wermacht and British will be held back because they have low capping power, slow to build, and are very immobile in the early game. The large maps will favor mobility who can capture fast and take more ground fast:
So... at first I think the initial meta will favor mobility because right now the conservative game is too use to smaller maps. The mobile players will counter the conservative defensive players on larger maps because they are essentially given more opportunity. But, That's not to say that defensive players can't still play their game. It won't be as formulaic as it use to be though. The current Axis "meta" I think are a few varied openings:
1. Pak, MG
2. Pak, Sniper
3. Bike/Swhim, MG
4. Bike/Swhim, Pak
Players who play inf openings or any other variation are normally the gambit types that try for something very aggressive. But I think the formerly mentioned are the top most frequently played right now. These 4 openings are effective because they are very powerful at controlling small areas making them perfect for securing the "critical points" mentioned.
On larger maps, playing this way will be much more difficult which may give rise to "defensive specialist" players. I've done this a few times myself after challenging some people to a series of 1v1's on large maps. Many times they would want to play Axis, so I let them play and I defeat them early game. They give the argument that large maps favor USA, so I switch with them. I would take a defensive spot, secure it, and use a concentrated force to attack their single spread out, mobile, capping units. So, there is always a strategy to stop another strategy and people will find MORE styles, strategies, formulas they will like to play than on the current maps that really eliminate a lot of possible strategies. It will also force the conservative players to think a little more critically than the same formula of play every game.
British is an interesting situation (I never liked playing them because I feel like the way their designed forces a particular style of play). They are very immobile and will have trouble keeping up in capturing. But, they have a very very strong advantage on large maps: their mobile HQ. The mobile HQ is hardly an advantage in small maps and if anything is a disadvantage because it forces British to expose their unit makers to gain resources while other factions can build OP's or Scout Cars. British are limited in building units too because of their cars, which means losing those very exposed trucks is even more devastating. British will have a difficult early game because they cannot capture fast. But, they do have different kind of advantage in the early game. Most British players use this advantage right now. Brits do no need to build, so they send their superior-to-other engineers out early to secure a critical point. They will still hold this advantage on large maps. Yes, they will not be able to capture as fast, but early-mid game they will be able to capitalize on their mobile HQ's while all other factions will have to run and reinforce from the base far far away on a large map. British have the ability to reinforce and create a greater variety of units from their trucks at no extra cost compared to the other factions' expensive FHQ's. I do think British will need a bit of tweaking, but it will not be impossible for the faction to stay competitive. I will probably not be one of those players who are very good with British because I personally do not enjoy playing them as much as other factions. I think they lack flexibility but that is my own opinion.
2. A large map will be slower pace with no action because everything is so spread out and far:
I think that's only if you play the game that way. I think having the choice is play an action packed chaotic game or a slow game should be a strategic choice for the players. I am a fencer and I see many different style of fencing. Each of them are unique and competitive. A good fencer knows how to impose their style on another fencer and force the opponent to play a game the opponent is not comfortable with. If a player wants to play a slow strategic game, that should be a choice. But, an aggressive player can continually harrass, attack, provoke, and create a chaotic atmosphere to make the slow player squirm. Meanwhile, the slow player can also become a patient hunter and make an aggressive player frustrated and blunder. It really depends on the players. I think it is more fun to control the game with skill than to ask devs to create a game that fits the way you like to play. It definitely makes me feel much more accomplished.
I'm reposting to bring up a discussion on its own thread. I feel like the other one was lost in the an old thread. This is just copied pasted, if you read it already and know what it's about, no need to read it again unless you're looking for a refresher. I'll end up talking more in a second post, keeping "new" words separate.
I think the best way to balance maps is to just play on bigger ones. So, for 2v2's to play on a 3v3 map. For 3v3's to play on a 4v4 map (always with exceptions). This itself I think actually fixes a lot of balance issues people normally bring up. I'll go through the ones that come to the top of my head because I hear them often.
1. Too much arty:
I think it's not so much of "too much arty" as it is "too easy to arty". Right now, I think the "meta" is to rush to critical points on the map and hold them. Most of the time these critical points are high resource points or a building/"high ground" a force can easily defend and launch attacks from. The thing about the maps though, is that there is normally 1 critical point per pair of opposing players. So for a 2v2, there are 2 critical points and the game turns into something like two separate 1v1's each battling for their critical points. When there is only a single critical point that all fights revolve around, it's easy to just mark that point as an arty target. So, the same point gets artied over and over again, making it feel like there is "too much" and no skill involved. A player can safely fire into black fog knowing that the chances of hitting SOMETHING is very high.
Playing on a larger map creates more critical points, more ways of defending and attacking critical points, and allowing more places to dodge arty. This will make finding arty targets much more difficult and costly (via CD's or just flat MU sometimes depending on the situation).
2. Bunkers, emplacements, MG42's:
Same logic as arty above. Normally bunkers on single critical points stalemate a game. A lot of times Axis players can plop an MG42 in one spot and essentially cover the entire critical area. So, on a 2v2 map all it takes are 2 mg42's to cover the entire map with suppression, stalemating the early game. Allies normally make mortar pits instead of bunkers, but same situation of stalemating a game.
More map area to cover makes positional strategy much more difficult than the same place every single time (that house on rails and metal... that house on on reverse defense... that intersection on cherbourg... etc.). Making sure the MG's flanks are covered, facing the right direction, etc takes a lot more skill when there is more area to defend. Sun Tzu Art of War says (yes, I'm Asian and have read it) don't try to impede on an open field because the enemy can just walk around it. If the strategic area is wide enough, players are forced to make decisions. Is the cost of digging in worth impeding the enemy at this particular spot knowing they can just bypass this defense? For the attacker, is the defense emplacement worth attacking when I can just bypass and attack somewhere else (another Art of War reference)?
3. Axis Tanks OP:
Axis tanks are really strong and have always been a really big argument focus. The arguments are always the same, "The tanks are too strong" and counterargument "Just use more skill and flank it". The counterargument is flawed because there are MANY situation where there is literally no room to flank, especially when the emplacement stalemate mentioned above basically stops any units from skirting the sides.
Bigger map allows for more room to maneuver. Pretty simple.
4. One shot kill units:
Units like Scotts, StuH's, Stupas, Field guns, etc. are effective because of the narrow lanes. This is similar to the "MG42" problem I mentioned before but to a greater extent because these units are mobile. Now, I know these units have been severely nerfed and aren't as much as a problem as before, but there is the occasional complaint. The narrow lanes make blobbing unavoidable sometimes. There just isn't enough room to spread out (as the counterarguments would normally say).
The solution? More room.
5. Blobbing:
So blobbing can be annoying at times because it is a heavy concentration of power with volume on a single point (very Carl Von Clausewitz, yeah you bet I'm studied on different texts of war). Blobbing is effective because defenses are sometimes forced to be confined on a single spot to get rushed. It should be a strategic choice to make a defensive line thin or loose depending on the method of attack. A large map gives players that option. More building space so to speak.
So I'm tired and will stop talking about what large maps fix. Instead I'll start talking about possible concerns players would have with large maps.
1. Wermacht and British will be held back because they have low capping power, slow to build, and are very immobile in the early game. The large maps will favor mobility who can capture fast and take more ground fast:
So... at first I think the initial meta will favor mobility because right now the conservative game is too use to smaller maps. The mobile players will counter the conservative defensive players on larger maps because they are essentially given more opportunity. But, That's not to say that defensive players can't still play their game. It won't be as formulaic as it use to be though. The current Axis "meta" I think are a few varied openings:
1. Pak, MG
2. Pak, Sniper
3. Bike/Swhim, MG
4. Bike/Swhim, Pak
Players who play inf openings or any other variation are normally the gambit types that try for something very aggressive. But I think the formerly mentioned are the top most frequently played right now. These 4 openings are effective because they are very powerful at controlling small areas making them perfect for securing the "critical points" mentioned.
On larger maps, playing this way will be much more difficult which may give rise to "defensive specialist" players. I've done this a few times myself after challenging some people to a series of 1v1's on large maps. Many times they would want to play Axis, so I let them play and I defeat them early game. They give the argument that large maps favor USA, so I switch with them. I would take a defensive spot, secure it, and use a concentrated force to attack their single spread out, mobile, capping units. So, there is always a strategy to stop another strategy and people will find MORE styles, strategies, formulas they will like to play than on the current maps that really eliminate a lot of possible strategies. It will also force the conservative players to think a little more critically than the same formula of play every game.
British is an interesting situation (I never liked playing them because I feel like the way their designed forces a particular style of play). They are very immobile and will have trouble keeping up in capturing. But, they have a very very strong advantage on large maps: their mobile HQ. The mobile HQ is hardly an advantage in small maps and if anything is a disadvantage because it forces British to expose their unit makers to gain resources while other factions can build OP's or Scout Cars. British are limited in building units too because of their cars, which means losing those very exposed trucks is even more devastating. British will have a difficult early game because they cannot capture fast. But, they do have different kind of advantage in the early game. Most British players use this advantage right now. Brits do no need to build, so they send their superior-to-other engineers out early to secure a critical point. They will still hold this advantage on large maps. Yes, they will not be able to capture as fast, but early-mid game they will be able to capitalize on their mobile HQ's while all other factions will have to run and reinforce from the base far far away on a large map. British have the ability to reinforce and create a greater variety of units from their trucks at no extra cost compared to the other factions' expensive FHQ's. I do think British will need a bit of tweaking, but it will not be impossible for the faction to stay competitive. I will probably not be one of those players who are very good with British because I personally do not enjoy playing them as much as other factions. I think they lack flexibility but that is my own opinion.
2. A large map will be slower pace with no action because everything is so spread out and far:
I think that's only if you play the game that way. I think having the choice is play an action packed chaotic game or a slow game should be a strategic choice for the players. I am a fencer and I see many different style of fencing. Each of them are unique and competitive. A good fencer knows how to impose their style on another fencer and force the opponent to play a game the opponent is not comfortable with. If a player wants to play a slow strategic game, that should be a choice. But, an aggressive player can continually harrass, attack, provoke, and create a chaotic atmosphere to make the slow player squirm. Meanwhile, the slow player can also become a patient hunter and make an aggressive player frustrated and blunder. It really depends on the players. I think it is more fun to control the game with skill than to ask devs to create a game that fits the way you like to play. It definitely makes me feel much more accomplished.