How so? 4v4 hosts roughly 40% of total players with 3v3 (~30%) being available alongside it. That shows 4v4 is not only the largest mode but the majority of teamgames players seems to prefer it over 3v3.
yes but with an option for 3v3 max those 40% will be in the 3v3 pool.
people just want the biggest mode because they think it s th emost action. if 3v3 is the biggest mode, no problem |
Maybe. Most idiots and droppers play 4v4. So those idiots would just move to 3v3. Now that idiot would reduce your overall team strength from 75% to 66%. Statistically, the more people, the stronger your overall team strength should be. Bad players and team balance should be more even with more players?
no, 1 out of 8 people is enough to kill your game. the matchmaking algorithm isnt forced to fill the gaps with a rank 10000 hero. those people will soon get matched with their kin if they do that often enough |
Probably true. But 4v4 is fan service if nothing else. It's by far the largest mode with ~40% of the playerbase (if the old statistics are still somewhat accurate).
The biggest problem is that it's pretty obvious that 3v3 and 4v4 were simply never/rarely thought about during the core design process and it has left the modes with some glaring issues (resource inflation, small maps, balance problems, matchmaking problems, etc.). The dynamics could've been a lot better if Relic had had more development time/resources to invest into finetuning the framework for teamgames more, rather than developing the game for 1v1 and a bit of 2v2 and just slapping on 3v3 and 4v4 at release.
like i said: im pretty sure most people wouldnt miss 4v4 when 3v3 is available. the 4v4 crowd would be pleased with 3v3 as well.
|
Maybe. Most idiots and droppers play 4v4. So those idiots would just move to 3v3. Now that idiot would reduce your overall team strength from 75% to 66%. Statistically, the more people, the stronger your overall team strength should be. Bad players and team balance should be more even with more players?
Besides all that, I would rather play 8v8 than 4v4  The more carnage and chaos the better! The best part of COH (and hopefully AOE4) is controlling large armies and actually feeling like you are managing and seeing what each unit is doing. So giant late game pushes are the payoff for some of us. Cute little flanks and cheese abilities do nothing for me. I want to see walls of death crashing into each other to then be wiped off the face of the earth with some nuke like bombs!
1v1-3v3 = sparkler.
4v4 = M80.
Yes, I have a very low IQ
you have starcraft, command and conquer and supreme commander for this.
leave coh alone |
What if i liked blobbin my panzerfussilier with officer aura?
What if i liked units popping out of a building and throwing a nade?
Everytime something gets balanced it also gets boring.
play starcraft if you like blobs
|
|
I think if they had scrapped the 4vs4 mode from scratch and do 3vs3 max. it would ve been much better for the game - more map variety, better balanced maps, better for the playerpool and skill gap, less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper
And the battles are almost as big and equally exciting as in 4vs4 but less confusing and also better performance-wise |
|
I think if they would ve scrapped the 4vs4 mode from scratch and do 3vs3 max. it would ve been much better for the game - more map variety, better balanced maps, better for the playerpool and skill gap, less chance of an idiot in your team or a dropper
And the battles are almost as big and equally exciting as in 4vs4 but less confusing and also better performance-wise |
It is no sense... I got 10 matches in a row like this matchmaking... Think that I was okw 110 rank.110rankokw..
I wonder if there is any trick to get better matchmakings. Otherwise I cant explain how high ranked players keep their rank in team games.
Plus the worst of all is that even if you loose to top 50 players while you are like 600 rank ... you still drop 80+ positions in ladder.
I dont think that any player in the world could stand on his rank with my matchmakings.
i had the same problem. then i started playing 1vs1 and this game was fun again.
try it |
Indeed there are holes, but people acting like the ukf has nothing but trash are either idiots or have an agenda.
Now let’s see what UKF has that Ostheer doesn’t.
60 range high pen TD
Sturmtiger, but actually good
Satchels on infantry with hammer
Heavy engineers with anvil
Light AT vehicle to contain LV play
Command vehicle to boost DPS of everything around it
5 man mainline inf with double LMGs
you forgot the 5 km range vickers in house and the fact that you need half as many APM as playing with OST |
So 1 faction should suffer entirely because it will make the game “unfun” i can name at least a dozen ways the game is not fun from every faction, there is always going to be stuff that makes the game unfun. If axis factions suffered as bad as the brits are right now I’d be saying the exact same thing. They need to be at least playable because its unfun that you cant play an entire faction which costs extra money on top of the game itself.
they are playable. all their strenghts are still in gamem |
DonnieChan
Burmie
![[◣╬◢] il capitano flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
