Tiger 405 fuel
SU-85 295 fuel
?
And the fuel supply.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Tiger 405 fuel
SU-85 295 fuel
?
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
And the fuel supply.
STOP THIS BULLSHIT.
There are no "inflation" in team games, most maps have 5 points on each side+ 1fuel and 1muni, EXACTLY like 1v1 maps. Hell the most inflated map in the game is crossroads while the less one is Hill 400(because of the excellent cutoffs).
Stop being bad and learn how to play the game.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
What fuel supply?
There is resource inflation in team games. It doesn't have to do with the number of resource points. It has to do with the number of resource points that's being contested. In 1v1, about 75% of the map's points is (usually) constantly changing hands. Ultimately sectors are neutral for a long time.
In team games however, usually 75% of resource sectors is never contested. Only frontline territories change hands. This means resource income is much more stable. This inflates the income and screws with timings, because costs and timings are mostly based on 1v1.
Not even mentioning how much easier it is in team games to put down a few caches.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
STOP THIS BULLSHIT.
There are no "inflation" in team games, most maps have 5 points on each side+ 1fuel and 1muni, EXACTLY like 1v1 maps. Hell the most inflated map in the game is crossroads while the less one is Hill 400(because of the excellent cutoffs).
Stop being bad and learn how to play the game.
Posts: 930
And these points are captured all within first 90 seconds and 90 seconds later all have a fuel cache on them.
In 4v4 you also do not have much of attacking other side, so points are uncontested for the most part.
That's the inflation he means.
Posts: 5279
Posts: 930
Anyone that thinks there isn't resource inflation in team games is either a fool or doest actually know what resources are like in the competitive modes. 1 player can build a cache that effects all of their team mates while only effectively costing 1/4 the price of the MP from the front. In 1s every squad matters, in 4s you can generally piss a way a few squads and still hold on because the next phase will be up soon. Anyone saying there is no difference simply doesn't realize it's there because they can't actually compare something they have never actually experienced.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
oh yeah, because that +3 fuel is gonna make ALL the difference in the world, right?
Posts: 5279
oh yeah, because that +3 fuel is gonna make ALL the difference in the world, right?
Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2
Posts: 3053
There is resource inflation in team games. It doesn't have to do with the number of resource points. It has to do with the number of resource points that's being contested. In 1v1, about 75% of the map's points is (usually) constantly changing hands. Cut-offs are much more frequent. Ultimately sectors are neutral or cut off for a long time.
In team games however, usually 75% of resource sectors is never contested. Only frontline territories change hands. This means resource income is much more stable. This inflates the income and screws with timings, because costs and timings are mostly based on 1v1.
Not even mentioning how much easier it is in team games to put down a few early caches.
Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2
People giving more priority to 3v3 and 4v4 are not people concerned about balance, since teamgames are more complex, hardly even, easly exploits cheese units and blobs.
If a team in 3v3 or 4v4 decides to put all their eggs into rushing a Tiger basket, then they should be incredibly vulnerable to be taken off the field, since one person will be solely focused on increasing full income, while the other can't spend any fuel because he is the one that's rushing the Tiger.
Tip of the day - Mines win games.
4 | |||||
120 | |||||
41 | |||||
14 |