In an ideal world, a player would be given a choice if they want to be part of a 3v3 or 5v5 GAC. Match making would then do its "magic" and go from there.
In an ideal world, a player would be given a choice if they want to be part of a 3v3 or 5v5 GAC. Match making would then do its "magic" and go from there.
I guess this could work. I'd never choose 3v3, I guess some would never choose 5v5. The people who swap between would then just make the numbers fluctuate.
The problem might be that sometimes the pool for one or the other might be too small, but I guess they could set a threshold and just force everyone into the more popular one for that run.
I loathe 3v3. The game isn't balanced around it which makes it miserable to play, but i also appreciate many enjoy the novelty of it.
I'd rather see an option like system where you choose which GAC Tournament you want to enter: 5v5 or 3v3. So if you prefer one format over another, you're always happy. If you prefer a mix, you're still happy!
Perhaps the solution would be to run 5v5 and 3v3 in parallel (like tb) and let people choose whether they want to join 5v5 or 3v3. I can imagine there are technical difficulties to implement it. But logically, it would please everyone.
Perhaps the solution would be to run 5v5 and 3v3 in parallel (like tb) and let people choose whether they want to join 5v5 or 3v3. I can imagine there are technical difficulties to implement it. But logically, it would please everyone.
3v3 is entirely untested and unplayable in this game (with exception in this very only mode). There is no reason to have it tbh - with exception of 10% who actually like it for easy defensive gac wins. Some GLs are unbeatable entirely by other gl due to lack of teams and the only fun in 3v3 is to put a brick defense and lol at the person simply failing a GL counter. After that its over and you won.
So it caters a minority to have untested and unbalanced stuff - can be fun for some. But if you could choose 5v5 or 3v3 i would always click 5v5 - because those are teams actually and not a rng fest if 1 attack/ability block misses etc.
I don't mind 3v3 now that my roster has improved, but I hate coming up against people who hate 3v3 and just set everything on defence to screw you over
You can know for sure if one has done that intentionally or not. In an old post by the devs, I have read that if a player does nothing in 5v5 or 3v3, the system fills the slots sequentially in descending order according to toon power. It happened to me, too, when I forgot setting up teams. That haphazard organization mostly eliminates synergies and while it makes the top front area hard, bottom front area may have teams that can be beatable by a team with synergy.
I don't mind 3v3 now that my roster has improved, but I hate coming up against people who hate 3v3 and just set everything on defence to screw you over
You can know for sure if one has done that intentionally or not. In an old post by the devs, I have read that if a player does nothing in 5v5 or 3v3, the system fills the slots sequentially in descending order according to toon power. It happened to me, too, when I forgot setting up teams. That haphazard organization mostly eliminates synergies and while it makes the top front area hard, bottom front area may have teams that can be beatable by a team with synergy.
That's an autoset. The poster you quoted is someone who purposely puts all their best teams on D.
Perhaps the solution would be to run 5v5 and 3v3 in parallel (like tb) and let people choose whether they want to join 5v5 or 3v3. I can imagine there are technical difficulties to implement it. But logically, it would please everyone.
Considering what's happening in Conquest today I can't imagine what havoc would be caused by those "technical difficulties". I do like the idea, however: it's just the execution that scares me.
Replies
Managing your roster is part of the competition.
I guess this could work. I'd never choose 3v3, I guess some would never choose 5v5. The people who swap between would then just make the numbers fluctuate.
The problem might be that sometimes the pool for one or the other might be too small, but I guess they could set a threshold and just force everyone into the more popular one for that run.
Wow, you're a regular Sun Tzu! I'll make sure and add "managing my roster" in with my next strategy!!
‘Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win‘ (Sun Tzu)
I'd rather see an option like system where you choose which GAC Tournament you want to enter: 5v5 or 3v3. So if you prefer one format over another, you're always happy. If you prefer a mix, you're still happy!
There is no pleasing everyone.
So it caters a minority to have untested and unbalanced stuff - can be fun for some. But if you could choose 5v5 or 3v3 i would always click 5v5 - because those are teams actually and not a rng fest if 1 attack/ability block misses etc.
You can know for sure if one has done that intentionally or not. In an old post by the devs, I have read that if a player does nothing in 5v5 or 3v3, the system fills the slots sequentially in descending order according to toon power. It happened to me, too, when I forgot setting up teams. That haphazard organization mostly eliminates synergies and while it makes the top front area hard, bottom front area may have teams that can be beatable by a team with synergy.
That's an autoset. The poster you quoted is someone who purposely puts all their best teams on D.
Considering what's happening in Conquest today I can't imagine what havoc would be caused by those "technical difficulties". I do like the idea, however: it's just the execution that scares me.