Should ZOS add a 6v6 BG mode?

Urvoth

Preferably with rankings and the ability to host private matches

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino

Yes

I totally agree with having 6v6's, and I so want to derail the topic about what else I wish ZOS would do, like Guild vs Guild matches, how to handle premades, balancing executes, etc, but I won't xD.

I think the concept of having 4v4v4 is neat in concept, and follows the lore of having three factions; however, having 6v6's would be fun as well. It'd remedy getting pinched from the other team in a lot of cases since you'd be so focused on each other.

Urvoth

Yes

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

I totally agree with having 6v6's, and I so want to derail the topic about what else I wish ZOS would do, like Guild vs Guild matches, how to handle premades, balancing executes, etc, but I won't xD.

I think the concept of having 4v4v4 is neat in concept, and follows the lore of having three factions; however, having 6v6's would be fun as well. It'd remedy getting pinched from the other team in a lot of cases since you'd be so focused on each other.

Yeah, I agree. There is so much more ZOS could do with the PvP in this game but they just don’t.

wheem_ESO

Other

I think 4v4 is probably better for ESO's PvP, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to 6v6. Just that with that team size, no house rules in effect (assuming it'd be a queue system), and no big balance changes, I think it'd be nothing but Magicka Templar healers and Stam DPS stacking bleeds and Dawnbreaker bombing. That still happens with premades in 4 man teams, but is a tad less extreme.

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino

Yes

6v6's would be the optimal GvG gametype imo; however, I feel if Zenimax were to create GvG's, there would need to be a balance in moderation from Zenimax. There would need to be a banlist for spells and sets.

Honestly, and I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I really wouldn't mind a guild system overhaul where guilds had more impact in the game. I'm talking guilds earn and controls castles or keeps, and on Fridays, they can be sieged by other guilds. If the attacking guild reaches the end of the siege and the point is taken (throne room?), that guild wins the castle. Castle wars.

Guilds could have progression and upgrade their keeps with more guards, and thus members could get passive bonuses for being apart of this guild (not a new concept to MMO's, worked great in the past with Age of Conan). If this system were put in place, then the entire CP system could be scrapped entirely. Here me out.

Having more focus on guilds would put less focus on the individual, ie gaining CP levels vs guild progression. Guild progression could be broken down into both PvP and PvE, one being GvG's and Castle Wars on Fridays, the other would be obtaining materials for keep upgrades, which in turn give those passive bonuses. Guild Level's points are allocated by the guild leader of said guild and give those bonuses out while if you don't hold a keep, you have no passives. This truly connects PvP players with the PvE community.

It's a cool concept, and I doubt everyone would agree, but it would offer an amazing change in pace from ball groups Cyrodiil and Spin to Win in BGs. We'd have entirely new metas for GvG's and Castle Wars, and it'd all tie into PvE with earning resources from fishing, dungeons, and other PvE events.

Urvoth

Yes

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

6v6's would be the optimal GvG gametype imo; however, I feel if Zenimax were to create GvG's, there would need to be a balance in moderation from Zenimax. There would need to be a banlist for spells and sets.

Honestly, and I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I really wouldn't mind a guild system overhaul where guilds had more impact in the game. I'm talking guilds earn and controls castles or keeps, and on Fridays, they can be sieged by other guilds. If the attacking guild reaches the end of the siege and the point is taken (throne room?), that guild wins the castle. Castle wars.

Guilds could have progression and upgrade their keeps with more guards, and thus members could get passive bonuses for being apart of this guild (not a new concept to MMO's, worked great in the past with Age of Conan). If this system were put in place, then the entire CP system could be scrapped entirely. Here me out.

Having more focus on guilds would put less focus on the individual, ie gaining CP levels vs guild progression. Guild progression could be broken down into both PvP and PvE, one being GvG's and Castle Wars on Fridays, the other would be obtaining materials for keep upgrades, which in turn give those passive bonuses. Guild Level's points are allocated by the guild leader of said guild and give those bonuses out while if you don't hold a keep, you have no passives. This truly connects PvP players with the PvE community.

It's a cool concept, and I doubt everyone would agree, but it would offer an amazing change in pace from ball groups Cyrodiil and Spin to Win in BGs. We'd have entirely new metas for GvG's and Castle Wars, and it'd all tie into PvE with earning resources from fishing, dungeons, and other PvE events.

Yeah guilds in PvP are pretty pointless atm and are really no different than a random group except maybe more coordinated.

ATomiX96

Yes

would be amazing but... "no ETA" (Matt Firor, ZOS Game Director)

Thogard

Yes

Urvoth wrote: »

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

6v6's would be the optimal GvG gametype imo; however, I feel if Zenimax were to create GvG's, there would need to be a balance in moderation from Zenimax. There would need to be a banlist for spells and sets.

Honestly, and I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I really wouldn't mind a guild system overhaul where guilds had more impact in the game. I'm talking guilds earn and controls castles or keeps, and on Fridays, they can be sieged by other guilds. If the attacking guild reaches the end of the siege and the point is taken (throne room?), that guild wins the castle. Castle wars.

Guilds could have progression and upgrade their keeps with more guards, and thus members could get passive bonuses for being apart of this guild (not a new concept to MMO's, worked great in the past with Age of Conan). If this system were put in place, then the entire CP system could be scrapped entirely. Here me out.

Having more focus on guilds would put less focus on the individual, ie gaining CP levels vs guild progression. Guild progression could be broken down into both PvP and PvE, one being GvG's and Castle Wars on Fridays, the other would be obtaining materials for keep upgrades, which in turn give those passive bonuses. Guild Level's points are allocated by the guild leader of said guild and give those bonuses out while if you don't hold a keep, you have no passives. This truly connects PvP players with the PvE community.

It's a cool concept, and I doubt everyone would agree, but it would offer an amazing change in pace from ball groups Cyrodiil and Spin to Win in BGs. We'd have entirely new metas for GvG's and Castle Wars, and it'd all tie into PvE with earning resources from fishing, dungeons, and other PvE events.

Yeah guilds in PvP are pretty pointless atm and are really no different than a random group except maybe more coordinated.

Must... resist... urge to be .. toxic....

leeux

Yes

I'd play 6v6!

And I won't touch 4v4v4 with a ten foot pole, because I dislike the unfairness of the type of games (that lead to everyone piling up against a few players often, which lead to ridiculous things like 8v1 or 8v2 oftentimes.)

Urvoth

Yes

Thogard wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

6v6's would be the optimal GvG gametype imo; however, I feel if Zenimax were to create GvG's, there would need to be a balance in moderation from Zenimax. There would need to be a banlist for spells and sets.

Honestly, and I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I really wouldn't mind a guild system overhaul where guilds had more impact in the game. I'm talking guilds earn and controls castles or keeps, and on Fridays, they can be sieged by other guilds. If the attacking guild reaches the end of the siege and the point is taken (throne room?), that guild wins the castle. Castle wars.

Guilds could have progression and upgrade their keeps with more guards, and thus members could get passive bonuses for being apart of this guild (not a new concept to MMO's, worked great in the past with Age of Conan). If this system were put in place, then the entire CP system could be scrapped entirely. Here me out.

Having more focus on guilds would put less focus on the individual, ie gaining CP levels vs guild progression. Guild progression could be broken down into both PvP and PvE, one being GvG's and Castle Wars on Fridays, the other would be obtaining materials for keep upgrades, which in turn give those passive bonuses. Guild Level's points are allocated by the guild leader of said guild and give those bonuses out while if you don't hold a keep, you have no passives. This truly connects PvP players with the PvE community.

It's a cool concept, and I doubt everyone would agree, but it would offer an amazing change in pace from ball groups Cyrodiil and Spin to Win in BGs. We'd have entirely new metas for GvG's and Castle Wars, and it'd all tie into PvE with earning resources from fishing, dungeons, and other PvE events.

Yeah guilds in PvP are pretty pointless atm and are really no different than a random group except maybe more coordinated.

Must... resist... urge to be .. toxic....

I guess better wording would be to say that they're functionally limited, in that the PvP system doesn't actually support them in any way except for claiming a keep. There aren't guild leaderboards or any official way for specific guild vs guild fighting, and even claiming keeps doesn't net the guild any sort of physical reward. Compare that to other PvP games where there's team rankings, team rewards for winning, etc.

Yeah, guild groups are great for getting a bunch of pug stompers together to smash everyone in sight, but there's no real functionality difference between one and a group of randoms, besides the skill and coordination.

Fake Remedy

Yes

This would be a magnet for premade's I reckon. With the current MMR state can only be a good thing.

Ash_In_My_Sujamma

Other

Yes as long as it had mechanics that required the 6 man team to split frequently in order to prevent balling

arcadion.carthaxb14_ESO

Other

Not until they fix MMR and BGs not filling.

NuarBlack

Yes

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

I totally agree with having 6v6's, and I so want to derail the topic about what else I wish ZOS would do, like Guild vs Guild matches, how to handle premades, balancing executes, etc, but I won't xD.

I think the concept of having 4v4v4 is neat in concept, and follows the lore of having three factions; however, having 6v6's would be fun as well. It'd remedy getting pinched from the other team in a lot of cases since you'd be so focused on each other.

The 3 factions follows lore and doesn't follow lore. As technically the 3 banners war isn't cannon in the wider elder scrolls universe. Plus BGs have never been 3 banners faction based anyway. Why it was implemented this way is cause ZoS doesn't understand what makes good pvp. I mean the game launched with only one pvp mode that had already been proven to be a giant failure in multiple games and guaranteed eso would never have a serious pvp scene just cause the team had a dev from Dark Age of Camelot blinded by rose tinted glasses.

Going just two teams will help alleviate the tank meta problem we have some too. Team builds will be more viable when you don't have to worry about tryin to survive 4v8 encounters all the time. Will get rid of the kill stealing problem too. Not even convinced it still needs to be 12 players. 4v4 would be fine too.

frostz417

Yes

Yes please

Flame_of_Hades

Yes

Rizz_the_Filthy_Dino wrote: »

6v6's would be the optimal GvG gametype imo; however, I feel if Zenimax were to create GvG's, there would need to be a balance in moderation from Zenimax. There would need to be a banlist for spells and sets.

Honestly, and I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I really wouldn't mind a guild system overhaul where guilds had more impact in the game. I'm talking guilds earn and controls castles or keeps, and on Fridays, they can be sieged by other guilds. If the attacking guild reaches the end of the siege and the point is taken (throne room?), that guild wins the castle. Castle wars.

Guilds could have progression and upgrade their keeps with more guards, and thus members could get passive bonuses for being apart of this guild (not a new concept to MMO's, worked great in the past with Age of Conan). If this system were put in place, then the entire CP system could be scrapped entirely. Here me out.

Having more focus on guilds would put less focus on the individual, ie gaining CP levels vs guild progression. Guild progression could be broken down into both PvP and PvE, one being GvG's and Castle Wars on Fridays, the other would be obtaining materials for keep upgrades, which in turn give those passive bonuses. Guild Level's points are allocated by the guild leader of said guild and give those bonuses out while if you don't hold a keep, you have no passives. This truly connects PvP players with the PvE community.

It's a cool concept, and I doubt everyone would agree, but it would offer an amazing change in pace from ball groups Cyrodiil and Spin to Win in BGs. We'd have entirely new metas for GvG's and Castle Wars, and it'd all tie into PvE with earning resources from fishing, dungeons, and other PvE events.

Good idea on paper, but what happens if a guild of 200 "medium skill players" attacks a guild of 20 "high skill players"..... RIP 20 people and the buffs they have worked for, cause zerg ball.

Pourekos

Other

6v6 is too small to counter one of the biggest issues in BGs: premades vs PUGs. In my opinion (so, subjective) it is needed to:

a) Make BGs XvX (2 teams) only, or at least all the new ones must be like this and give the option to queue for them only.
b) Make them all medium size in terms of player numbers (8min-16max players per team) and make the maps slightly bigger with multiple points of conflict to force each team to break in at least two parts and be separated.
c) Each map to have 3 points of conflict minimum

The above allow for certain things to happen, ie since it's 8 players minimum they can still allow premades vs PUGs but maximum only 1 premade group of 4 per team. Additionally, if the teams will have to always split in order to defend/attack points, this means that the premade group might be dominating 1 point but the rest of their team needs to carry their weight or risk losing the game as their opponents might focus on the other 2 points.

As points of reference from other MMOs that successfully applied the above criteria, I would point towards Arathi Basin from WoW and Alderaan Civil War from SWTOR. I am sure other MMOs have similar maps, it's just I am more familiar with those.

ecru

Other

6v6 is still too small and still ends up with premades being 4 out of 6 players, or knowing zos they would let premades of 6 queue against pugs and things would be worse than they are now. Another issue with 6v6 is that small matches are too easily imbalanced by a few exceptional players (or the aforementioned 4 person premade), so larger matches are generally less lopsided if MMR is working properly.

8v8 would be the better choice with groups split into 4, which would allow a premade group of 4 to queue but only make up half of any team.

A lot of people have asked for 8v8 or just two teams in general since BGs were released but it doesn't seem like ZOS wants to listen. Three teams is completely abritrary and does nothing but cause balance issues that will never be solved, which weirdly enough are balance issues that have already been solved in games with two teams.

I was one of the best/most active pvpers in Rift for years and I hardly ever queue for BGs in ESO for one reason--the third team. I know there are a lot of other players who feel the same way too. It's a dumb system that creates chaotic, frantic, and disorganized pvp which is just not fun at all.

Pourekos wrote: »

6v6 is too small to counter one of the biggest issues in BGs: premades vs PUGs. In my opinion (so, subjective) it is needed to:

a) Make BGs XvX (2 teams) only, or at least all the new ones must be like this and give the option to queue for them only.
b) Make them all medium size in terms of player numbers (8min-16max players per team) and make the maps slightly bigger with multiple points of conflict to force each team to break in at least two parts and be separated.
c) Each map to have 3 points of conflict minimum

The above allow for certain things to happen, ie since it's 8 players minimum they can still allow premades vs PUGs but maximum only 1 premade group of 4 per team. Additionally, if the teams will have to always split in order to defend/attack points, this means that the premade group might be dominating 1 point but the rest of their team needs to carry their weight or risk losing the game as their opponents might focus on the other 2 points.

As points of reference from other MMOs that successfully applied the above criteria, I would point towards Arathi Basin from WoW and Alderaan Civil War from SWTOR. I am sure other MMOs have similar maps, it's just I am more familiar with those.

Yep, this guy gets it. Also, the maps you're talking about have been a mainstay of pvp games in just about every genre, not just MMOs, starting with the classic 2fort map from the original Team Fortress. Another example would be Blood Gulch from Halo. Mirrored maps are very easy to balance and very easy to place objectives like capture points on, which is why they've been around for so long.

8v8 would save BGs from the mediocrity they are today and turn them into something actually enjoyable.

Mojomonkeyman

No

The way ESO plays out I would be strongly opposed to team size above 4 - I feel it would require new (or heavily adjusted) modes & maps to ensure players have to spread out (and/or fulfil certain map/mode related roles, i.e.: fast roamer, heavy pointguard, etc.) and dont end up zerging every game. I ususally see no difference in 6v6 and ballgrp play - incredibly boring.

GW1 + 2 did that a lot better than eso.

Grimlok_S

Other

I think I'd prefer 3v3v3. or something that allows for more roaming, rewarding smart engagements.

the current 4v4v4 or 6v6 GvG often boils down to who can stack the most aoe, roots and snares, while timing dawnbreakers with spin to win.

Urvoth

Yes

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

The way ESO plays out I would be strongly opposed to team size above 4 - I feel it would require new (or heavily adjusted) modes & maps to ensure players have to spread out (and/or fulfil certain map/mode related roles, i.e.: fast roamer, heavy pointguard, etc.) and dont end up zerging every game. I ususally see no difference in 6v6 and ballgrp play - incredibly boring.

GW1 + 2 did that a lot better than eso.

Control points would be the best game mode for 6v6 I think. It ensures teams have to spread out in order to win.

ecru

Other

Pourekos wrote: »

6v6 is too small to counter one of the biggest issues in BGs: premades vs PUGs. In my opinion (so, subjective) it is needed to:

a) Make BGs XvX (2 teams) only, or at least all the new ones must be like this and give the option to queue for them only.
b) Make them all medium size in terms of player numbers (8min-16max players per team) and make the maps slightly bigger with multiple points of conflict to force each team to break in at least two parts and be separated.
c) Each map to have 3 points of conflict minimum

The above allow for certain things to happen, ie since it's 8 players minimum they can still allow premades vs PUGs but maximum only 1 premade group of 4 per team. Additionally, if the teams will have to always split in order to defend/attack points, this means that the premade group might be dominating 1 point but the rest of their team needs to carry their weight or risk losing the game as their opponents might focus on the other 2 points.

As points of reference from other MMOs that successfully applied the above criteria, I would point towards Arathi Basin from WoW and Alderaan Civil War from SWTOR. I am sure other MMOs have similar maps, it's just I am more familiar with those.

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

The way ESO plays out I would be strongly opposed to team size above 4 - I feel it would require new (or heavily adjusted) modes & maps to ensure players have to spread out (and/or fulfil certain map/mode related roles, i.e.: fast roamer, heavy pointguard, etc.) and dont end up zerging every game. I ususally see no difference in 6v6 and ballgrp play - incredibly boring.

GW1 + 2 did that a lot better than eso.

Where does the assumption come from that groups of 6 or 8 would turn into a "ballgroup" when most matches are just going to be pugs? This makes absolutely no sense at all, there is zero reason to believe any match will have teams that organized unless an entire team is a full premade, which if zos is smart, won't be possible.

Groups that stack aoe do so because they're organized. You won't find the same organized groups of 8+ in instanced battlegrounds as you will in Cyrodiil where 8 people or more can queue together and form a group with a specific goal/playstyle in mind.

Honestly I get the feeling that ESO is the only pvp game a lot of players here have ever participated in when I read some of these posts.

Grimlok_S wrote: »

I think I'd prefer 3v3v3. or something that allows for more roaming, rewarding smart engagements.

the current 4v4v4 or 6v6 GvG often boils down to who can stack the most aoe, roots and snares, while timing dawnbreakers with spin to win.

The same assumptions in this post are the ones I just responded to above. No, people won't stack aoe in a pug of 6 players and spin to win and time their dawnbreakers or whatever you think is going to happen because they won't be organized. Do you believe that a group of 6 strangers are going to get into discord in the 30 seconds they have before a match so they can get organized to win a match that doesn't mean anything? In fact, the larger the team sizes are, the less you encounter these kinds of groups because you can allow a group of 4 (in an 8v8 scenario) to queue as a premade, but only make up half of any team. This means the organized group will max out at 4 players and their organized spin to win strategy will have to work on 8 players who are all going after them, not 4, or 4+4 players fighting each other (lol).

3v3v3 or 3v3 or 4v4 would end up worse than what we have now due to smaller team sizes creating more obvious imbalances due to how easily one or two strong players (or a smaller organized premade consisting of an entire team) can dominate a match. The smaller the teams get, the worse this problem gets. If it were 2v2v2, you would end up with two players queued together who can easily win a 2v4 over and over and over again, but would often instead use the third team to their advantage to get the jump on the other two teams (like what happens now) while they're fighting, leading to 2 players who can win 2v4 dominating those two teams essentially unchallenged. If you thought you felt helpless fighting premades now, wait until the teams are even smaller

Pourekos

Other

ecru wrote: »

Where does the assumption come from that groups of 6 or 8 would turn into a "ballgroup" when most matches are just going to be pugs? This makes absolutely no sense at all, there is zero reason to believe any match will have teams that organized unless an entire team is a full premade, which if zos is smart, won't be possible.

Groups that stack aoe do so because they're organized. You won't find the same organized groups of 8+ in instanced battlegrounds as you will in Cyrodiil where 8 people or more can queue together and form a group with a specific goal/playstyle in mind.

Honestly I get the feeling that ESO is the only pvp game a lot of players here have ever participated in when I read some of these posts.

Edit: I am getting the impression you misquoted me :-)

jediodyn_ESO

No

3v3 adds an extra layer of strategy and unpredictability to the game.

Urvoth

Yes

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

3v3 adds an extra layer of strategy and unpredictability to the game.

How so? I think it hinders strategy if anything.

MurderMostFoul

No

6v6 would result in one team curb-stomping the other 90% of the time.

jediodyn_ESO

No

Urvoth wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

3v3 adds an extra layer of strategy and unpredictability to the game.

How so? I think it hinders strategy if anything.

First, I should say that one battleground that has only two teams would not be terrible to have as one of the possible battlegrounds. Variety is a good thing (usually). But, if that were the case, why not make it 7v7 (14 players) instead of just 6v6? The game can certainly handle 15 people in a match.

To answer your question:
In Deathmatch games, 3v3 means that teams need to constantly be considering positioning not to get "sandwiched' between the other two teams. Additionally, your team needs to consider which targets to eliminate of the other two teams, when to engage, and respawn. There is actually a lot of strategy that could be (but is rarely) applied.

In Domination and Crazy King 3v3 means you need to constantly be weighing the value of continuing to fight for the flag you're after of moving to another flag, it also means you need to decide how to separate your team and which part should hold which flag while the other part (or parts capture or hold other flags). Ive seen many good teams lose a match because they spend too long totally wrecking a respawning team on the flag nearest that team's spawn point while the third team caps the entire match.

For Capture the Relic, the added layer of strategy should be obvious. You need to pick and choose who's relic is really the best grab and at what time it will be best. Its actually super fun to try and sneak in and make a grab & dash when two other teams are fighting. Additionally you need strategy in which relic you prioritize base on who is winning, and when to actually cap the relic you've taken. I've seen many matches lost because one team caps a relic too soon, when holding it for just a few moments longer would mean one of the opposing teams dropping the relic they have and not getting any points. Also, sometimes the weakest team is not the best grab, or the best strategy is to ambush the runner instead of trying to be the one grabbing from the base.

Chaosball probably has the least amount of strategy since most teams just grab the ball and run it to their respawn (its lame that this is usually, although not always, the best defense btw). However, even in Chaosball it means you need to have a little bit of strategy. If you die with the ball and your team is dead, you don't want the next highest team to get that ball, also when going for the ball carrier, you need to strategize if its better to kill some of the other enemy team before going for the ball carrier and or delay your attack until both of the other teams are weakened. As defenders you need to decide if its better to totally wipe out one of the enemy teams first, or priorize certian players over others.

So yeah, 3v3 adds strategy and unpredicatbility to what would be a much simpler game if it was just 1v1.

ecru

Other

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

3v3 adds an extra layer of strategy and unpredictability to the game.

How so? I think it hinders strategy if anything.

First, I should say that one battleground that has only two teams would not be terrible to have as one of the possible battlegrounds. Variety is a good thing (usually). But, if that were the case, why not make it 7v7 (14 players) instead of just 6v6? The game can certainly handle 15 people in a match.

To answer your question:
In Deathmatch games, 3v3 means that teams need to constantly be considering positioning not to get "sandwiched' between the other two teams. Additionally, your team needs to consider which targets to eliminate of the other two teams, when to engage, and respawn. There is actually a lot of strategy that could be (but is rarely) applied.

In Domination and Crazy King 3v3 means you need to constantly be weighing the value of continuing to fight for the flag you're after of moving to another flag, it also means you need to decide how to separate your team and which part should hold which flag while the other part (or parts capture or hold other flags). Ive seen many good teams lose a match because they spend too long totally wrecking a respawning team on the flag nearest that team's spawn point while the third team caps the entire match.

For Capture the Relic, the added layer of strategy should be obvious. You need to pick and choose who's relic is really the best grab and at what time it will be best. Its actually super fun to try and sneak in and make a grab & dash when two other teams are fighting. Additionally you need strategy in which relic you prioritize base on who is winning, and when to actually cap the relic you've taken. I've seen many matches lost because one team caps a relic too soon, when holding it for just a few moments longer would mean one of the opposing teams dropping the relic they have and not getting any points. Also, sometimes the weakest team is not the best grab, or the best strategy is to ambush the runner instead of trying to be the one grabbing from the base.

Chaosball probably has the least amount of strategy since most teams just grab the ball and run it to their respawn (its lame that this is usually, although not always, the best defense btw). However, even in Chaosball it means you need to have a little bit of strategy. If you die with the ball and your team is dead, you don't want the next highest team to get that ball, also when going for the ball carrier, you need to strategize if its better to kill some of the other enemy team before going for the ball carrier and or delay your attack until both of the other teams are weakened. As defenders you need to decide if its better to totally wipe out one of the enemy teams first, or priorize certian players over others.

So yeah, 3v3 adds strategy and unpredicatbility to what would be a much simpler game if it was just 1v1.

3v3v3 is the same as 4v4v4 but with more lopsided matches because of smaller team sizes. It would be even worse than what we have now, and that would be quite the achievement.

jediodyn_ESO

No

ecru wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

3v3 adds an extra layer of strategy and unpredictability to the game.

How so? I think it hinders strategy if anything.

First, I should say that one battleground that has only two teams would not be terrible to have as one of the possible battlegrounds. Variety is a good thing (usually). But, if that were the case, why not make it 7v7 (14 players) instead of just 6v6? The game can certainly handle 15 people in a match.

To answer your question:
In Deathmatch games, 3v3 means that teams need to constantly be considering positioning not to get "sandwiched' between the other two teams. Additionally, your team needs to consider which targets to eliminate of the other two teams, when to engage, and respawn. There is actually a lot of strategy that could be (but is rarely) applied.

In Domination and Crazy King 3v3 means you need to constantly be weighing the value of continuing to fight for the flag you're after of moving to another flag, it also means you need to decide how to separate your team and which part should hold which flag while the other part (or parts capture or hold other flags). Ive seen many good teams lose a match because they spend too long totally wrecking a respawning team on the flag nearest that team's spawn point while the third team caps the entire match.

For Capture the Relic, the added layer of strategy should be obvious. You need to pick and choose who's relic is really the best grab and at what time it will be best. Its actually super fun to try and sneak in and make a grab & dash when two other teams are fighting. Additionally you need strategy in which relic you prioritize base on who is winning, and when to actually cap the relic you've taken. I've seen many matches lost because one team caps a relic too soon, when holding it for just a few moments longer would mean one of the opposing teams dropping the relic they have and not getting any points. Also, sometimes the weakest team is not the best grab, or the best strategy is to ambush the runner instead of trying to be the one grabbing from the base.

Chaosball probably has the least amount of strategy since most teams just grab the ball and run it to their respawn (its lame that this is usually, although not always, the best defense btw). However, even in Chaosball it means you need to have a little bit of strategy. If you die with the ball and your team is dead, you don't want the next highest team to get that ball, also when going for the ball carrier, you need to strategize if its better to kill some of the other enemy team before going for the ball carrier and or delay your attack until both of the other teams are weakened. As defenders you need to decide if its better to totally wipe out one of the enemy teams first, or priorize certian players over others.

So yeah, 3v3 adds strategy and unpredicatbility to what would be a much simpler game if it was just 1v1.

3v3v3 is the same as 4v4v4 but with more lopsided matches because of smaller team sizes. It would be even worse than what we have now, and that would be quite the achievement.

Yeah I explained that poorly. I meant a 3 team match where each team is fighting each other (what we have now) I agree that decreasing the team sizes would be a bad idea, but I think that the “3 way” (kappa) we have now is not a bad design.

hesobad

No

What so 6 man pre mades will go up against 6 solo quers????????? Where is the *** NO option?

Seraphayel

Other

I would rather prefer 8vs8vs8 or even 12vs12vs12 battles. That would be fun!