There is so much cancer in this thread I don't even know where to operate.
@ everyone
It is impossible to doubt that team games are the most popular game mode. Here are the statistics on the front page.
http://coh2chart.com/
If you wish to refute this argument, you must discredit these statistics. Simply giving your own counter-statistics does not accomplish anything. This is self-apparent to anyone who has done any form whatsoever of academic research in absolutely any field; your theory must acknowledge and either accommodate or explain away existing theories to be accepted by the general academic population.
Having said that, I will now explain why OCF had 2000+ viewers despite being a 1v1 tournament.
- COH2.org had months of advertising for it
- Relic advertised it within the COH2 game.
Looking at the viewership of one tournament with mass advertising (in COH2 standards) and claiming that therefore 1v1s are popular among the majority of players is a poor argument.
Assuming the hypothetical situation that it is impossible to balance both 1v1 and 4v4, Relic would lose less by disabling the ability to queue for 1v1 games than 4v4 games. Of course, one must also remember that 4v4 games have 4x as many players as 1v1 games.
@Dusty
You continue to insist that, by virtue of your 1v1 skills, your judgements and theories about the problems and workings of 4v4 are automatically correct. This argument implies, and relies upon, the "elitism" of 1v1 over other game modes; that is, a 1v1 player requires more skill than a 4v4 player.
This argument is innately flawed because it fails to define what is meant by 'skill'. One can easily identify a 'skilled' saxophone player, or a 'skilled' baseball player, because only one set of abilities is being compared. However, it is far more difficult to judge who the better "skilled" musician, or "skilled" sportsman is, if you are given two musicians who play different instruments, or two sportsmen who play different sports.
Skill in 1v1 games undoubtedly requires larger map awareness and higher APM/Micro. However, having these skills does not make you a 'skilled' 4v4 player, any more than being a skilled baseball player means you can play cricket.
Not once do you even accept the possibility that 4v4 game modes require different types of skill or awareness. You must prove this if your arguments are to be valid.
At the same time, however, you yourself acknowledge that 4v4s are innately different than 1v1 games, albeit in a derogatory way
I don't really think there needs to be a lot of explaining on why 3s and 4s are a balance shit show, the nature of the many variables makes some dumb things work. [implied] that wouldn't work otherwise [/implied]
However, at the same time you continually insist that your experience in smaller team games allows you to recognise and judge the value of arguments and concerns in 4v4 games from 4v4 players. Furthermore, you are openly hostile to 4v4 players who have a different opinion on balance issues as you do.
The reason I cannot accept any of your arguments, and the same reason I encourage everyone else to disregard your arguments, can thus be summarised;
- you ignore the fact that 4v4s are the most popular game mode
- you believe, by virtue of your superior 1v1 abilities, that your judgements are automatically superior to those of a 4v4 player, and thus
- you refuse to acknowledge most complaints brought up by 4v4 players about 4v4 specific to 4v4, because you believe they are complaints by a bunch of unskilled idiotic retarded casual crybabies who don't know how to play the game, despite the fact that they actually play 4v4s and you don't
- you are openly hostile towards those that disagree with you regarding 4v4 game mode
In further summary, in case you refuse to read my post because I am a 4v4 player;
- I view your arguments about 4v4 in the same light you view my arguments about 1v1
- Your entire justification of the superiority of your arguments lie in the fact that you play 1v1, and I play 4v4.
Finally, to get back on fucking topic;
One must remember in 4v4 game modes, that the allied team can have potentially all three factions. Therefore, if UKF has a significantly lower win% than USF and SOV, there must also be a larger # of games with either only UKF or 3UKF (+EITHER USF OR SOV).
This does not necessarily mean that UKF cannot be played in team games. Perhaps 1/2 UKF with proper mixed allies remains quite powerful.
This also does not necessarily mean that UKF is "fine". We cannot know, hypothetically, if UKF was deleted tomorrow, how the USF and SOV win rates would adjust (assuming all UKF players would play either USF and SOV with the same skill)