I don't care if there is more 3v3 than 1v1 players. Game is still balanced with 1v1 in mind and frankly I can't imagine being different.
true
2v2 is where the competitive aspect of the game ends, rest it's only for fun. Besides 80% of loses in so called team games is not due to balance issues but due to having terrible players in your team who doen't even know simple building orders as they never played anything but 3v3, 4v4. I am not only talking about players being bad in general but also about not knowing and form of strategy and tactics as there is no room for such in large games.
you are probably right about the 80% thingy but what about the 20%?
why should the competitiveness end there? who says it's only for fun? just because you and the minor portion of coh2 community think that way, that does not mean 3v3+ are only for fun.
I'm guessing you don't play much of 3v3+ and you certainly have not played a 3v3+ games where every one of the players knows what they are doing pretty well. you have so much fronts and flanks to worry about it's not even funny. amount of cooperation and communication required in those even matches in 3v3+ is ridiculous.
There is too much units wondering about to even remotely talk about ambushes and stuff so tactics comes to gathering some units and just straight forward attack on opponents positions hoping for success. When I see coordinated attack in 3v3 game I am well shocked and impressed.
in maps like ettelbuck station or angermuende, you might be right. they are like 1v1 stalingrad map in terms or clusterfucked-ness. in more appropriately designed map with enough open spaces, ambushes and flanking very doable.
You want to play 3v3? No problem at all just don't expect this mode to be balanced ever besides as I said it before 80% you're loosing due to lack of co operations or player skill differences rather than balance issue.
yeah... again, not all 3v3+ players are braindead or headless chickens.
Canada
Relic Entertainment
