3v3 when will it go away?

Prev1
I'm not sure who's brain child this is but when will this mode go away? It really is boring and a real let down in terms of getting the most out of what you play the game for everyday trying to get. So many toons/skills/synergies rendered useless.

I can't imagine this is popular. Is it?? I just kind of whatever through the whole season totally disinterested.

Replies

  • Julian_Sixty_Six
    108 posts Member
    edited April 19
    TVF wrote: »
    It's not going away. Nor should it.

    Hmm. What's the awesome part about it that is so much better than 2v2 or 4v4 or 1v1? How about 1v1?

    And what is the cool part about sitting toons on the bench that you spend gear and stuff on?
  • TVF
    30985 posts Member
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • 1v1? RIP SEE.
  • Julian_Sixty_Six
    108 posts Member
    edited April 19
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.
  • TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.
  • TVF
    30985 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    K

    It's not going away.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?
  • TVF wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    K

    It's not going away.

    K

    Well it should. Or there should be a choice for those who don't want to be forced to play a dumb thing. But thanks for the clever snark!
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.
  • BioHazard
    123 posts Member
    edited April 19
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    I'm not sure whose brainchild this is but when will this mode return again? It really breaks up the monotony of 5v5, opening up so many opportunities for theorycrafting new toon/ability/synergy combinations.

    I can't imagine this is unpopular with anyone capable of thinking for themselves.

    Thanks Rath_Tarr. For those not wanting to read my essay of a post, I allude to this point. Rath_Tarr sums it up perfectly.
  • Julian_Sixty_Six
    108 posts Member
    edited April 19
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    Would even better players opt for 2v2? Or maybe even better players than that opt for 1v1? The problem is that the game dynamic has been made for 5v squads. It's also a real let down to spend time gearing a toon that will ride the bench for 4 weeks and you get no value out of it.

    It seems like the rational thing to do would be put it to the Pepsi challenge instead of forcing people to lose large swaths of their rosters because people have an ideological predisposition. It kind of sucks.

    Sorry for degrading it, I shouldn't have come in spicy. It's just that man it's so boring.

    I look forward to your response.

  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    I like it
  • TVF
    30985 posts Member
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    Would even better players opt for 2v2? Or maybe even better players than that opt for 1v1? The problem is that the game dynamic has been made for 5v squads. It's also a real let down to spend time gearing a toon that will ride the bench for 4 weeks and you get no value out of it.

    It seems like the rational thing to do would be put it to the Pepsi challenge instead of forcing people to lose large swaths of their rosters because people have an ideological predisposition. It kind of sucks.

    Sorry for degrading it, I shouldn't have come in spicy. It's just that man it's so boring.

    I look forward to your response.

    Maybe I shouldn’t say the “best players” but rather the players who want to become better. I think 5v5 teams are pretty much presets and have little variety compared to 3v3, mostly because of how strong the offensive meta game is. You have to operate under the assumption that your opponent will get a full clear because there is a counter for every defensive team these days. And for the teams that do have variety (looking at you GL Rey), the counters are so strong that in human hands, can account for any deviation from the norm. 3v3 requires you to have a little more than surface level understanding, since the best teams aren’t as know, because every variant of a team has value.

    To me, a 4v4 lineup would just be 5v5 minus the weakest link and for most teams this is obvious, but 3v3 is different because that character in the fourth spot might be more valuable than a character in the 3rd spot. For me, when using 501st, I would drop ARC trooper, the named clones and GAS can hold on well enough on their own. But in 3v3, I would drop Rex next and have him lead his own team. If anything, Rex is 2nd or 3rd strongest links in that team (depends on where you want to rank 5s); that turn meter gain, Rexilate, and speed boost from the unique is invaluable. I wouldn’t want to bench him in 4v4, but for 3v3, I wouldn’t want to bench him either, but find another way to use him since his lead still works well to this day.

    For 2v2, I think it would be too much surface-level thinking since many characters are made to work in pairs, ie. The Revans and the Bastilas, Han and Chewie, RH Finn and RH Poe, etc. I can see it becoming stale quite quickly. Same with a 1v1 meta game. It would only be the strongest characters with more preset counters. Rey would murder everything except maybe SLKR, but that ultimate ability might say otherwise.

    I understand your point about characters sitting on the side for 4 weeks. Many are tuned for 5v5, and I would really like to use my Moff Gideon in an effective setting more than 6 months of the year on average moving forward. But I think something that you and I can agree on, is that more content would make this concern much less significant. Don’t get me wrong, conquest has been great, but it doesn’t force me to stretch out my roster like say, for example, a raid would. That forced aspect helps to create incentive. For example, I use Palpatine and Vader more than I do my bounty hunters in PvP, but I would absolutely use Bounty Hunters over those two any day (Ep 1 Mando lead looks built for the raids, btw). In conquest, I could use whoever I wanted to and with the right data disks, I can make any lineup work. Conquest is very much a data disk meta and less so a character meta; Beskar Mando with stacking offense upon dropping under 100% health and combined with the threshold repeater disk, can delete entire teams with 20 whistling birds. But apart from that, I struggle to find where I can use him effectively. He is great in 5v5 with Han and Chewie, and decent otherwise. If there was content that allowed me to take advantage of the characters I might bench in PvP (like Beskar Mando) would be happy to accept alternative reasons to gear them up.
  • TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?

    Probably just to see your GAC record and bracket to better understand the position you are coming from.
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    Would even better players opt for 2v2? Or maybe even better players than that opt for 1v1? The problem is that the game dynamic has been made for 5v squads. It's also a real let down to spend time gearing a toon that will ride the bench for 4 weeks and you get no value out of it.

    It seems like the rational thing to do would be put it to the Pepsi challenge instead of forcing people to lose large swaths of their rosters because people have an ideological predisposition. It kind of sucks.

    Sorry for degrading it, I shouldn't have come in spicy. It's just that man it's so boring.

    I look forward to your response.

    Maybe I shouldn’t say the “best players” but rather the players who want to become better. I think 5v5 teams are pretty much presets and have little variety compared to 3v3, mostly because of how strong the offensive meta game is. You have to operate under the assumption that your opponent will get a full clear because there is a counter for every defensive team these days. And for the teams that do have variety (looking at you GL Rey), the counters are so strong that in human hands, can account for any deviation from the norm. 3v3 requires you to have a little more than surface level understanding, since the best teams aren’t as know, because every variant of a team has value.

    To me, a 4v4 lineup would just be 5v5 minus the weakest link and for most teams this is obvious, but 3v3 is different because that character in the fourth spot might be more valuable than a character in the 3rd spot. For me, when using 501st, I would drop ARC trooper, the named clones and GAS can hold on well enough on their own. But in 3v3, I would drop Rex next and have him lead his own team. If anything, Rex is 2nd or 3rd strongest links in that team (depends on where you want to rank 5s); that turn meter gain, Rexilate, and speed boost from the unique is invaluable. I wouldn’t want to bench him in 4v4, but for 3v3, I wouldn’t want to bench him either, but find another way to use him since his lead still works well to this day.

    For 2v2, I think it would be too much surface-level thinking since many characters are made to work in pairs, ie. The Revans and the Bastilas, Han and Chewie, RH Finn and RH Poe, etc. I can see it becoming stale quite quickly. Same with a 1v1 meta game. It would only be the strongest characters with more preset counters. Rey would murder everything except maybe SLKR, but that ultimate ability might say otherwise.

    I understand your point about characters sitting on the side for 4 weeks. Many are tuned for 5v5, and I would really like to use my Moff Gideon in an effective setting more than 6 months of the year on average moving forward. But I think something that you and I can agree on, is that more content would make this concern much less significant. Don’t get me wrong, conquest has been great, but it doesn’t force me to stretch out my roster like say, for example, a raid would. That forced aspect helps to create incentive. For example, I use Palpatine and Vader more than I do my bounty hunters in PvP, but I would absolutely use Bounty Hunters over those two any day (Ep 1 Mando lead looks built for the raids, btw). In conquest, I could use whoever I wanted to and with the right data disks, I can make any lineup work. Conquest is very much a data disk meta and less so a character meta; Beskar Mando with stacking offense upon dropping under 100% health and combined with the threshold repeater disk, can delete entire teams with 20 whistling birds. But apart from that, I struggle to find where I can use him effectively. He is great in 5v5 with Han and Chewie, and decent otherwise. If there was content that allowed me to take advantage of the characters I might bench in PvP (like Beskar Mando) would be happy to accept alternative reasons to gear them up.

    This is an interesting read. I don't play with the assumption my opponent will get a full clear ever I always assume I will get key stops and I typically do. But I'm sure this changes up in the 6-7m GP range when people are consolidated pretty much and there isn't much variance in rosters. Given that life is different at different GP a choice between 3v3 and 5v5 seems rational. They give us a choice between "hard" and "normal" in Conquest. Choices are good, usually. People like choices, and also choices help reveal what people actually like much more than force.

    Good points that I can understand. I'm just not getting anything out of it. I like to use my roster.
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?

    Probably just to see your GAC record and bracket to better understand the position you are coming from.

    I'm in my first season of Div 2, 4.2 GP. I'm not disclosing my identity as I stand to gain nothing from that. An 11-1 record or 12-0 is not some feat lots of people do that so I'm not bragging. Perhaps my gripes are due to my position in GP I dunno maybe it's more interesting at endgame or something. I mean, 3v3 is a nice change for about 2 minutes but I end up setting the same squads on D and same squads on O.

    I think what I don't like about it is that 3v3 defensive squads are totally useless on O and O squads mostly useless on D take away GL's which are versatile. So it's like you do the same thing every single round. I am a defense fanatic so I do really well on that side of the ball but 5v5 requires more thought because the squads are more versatile in 5's.
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?

    Probably just to see your GAC record and bracket to better understand the position you are coming from.

    I'm in my first season of Div 2, 4.2 GP. I'm not disclosing my identity as I stand to gain nothing from that. An 11-1 record or 12-0 is not some feat lots of people do that so I'm not bragging. Perhaps my gripes are due to my position in GP I dunno maybe it's more interesting at endgame or something. I mean, 3v3 is a nice change for about 2 minutes but I end up setting the same squads on D and same squads on O.

    I think what I don't like about it is that 3v3 defensive squads are totally useless on O and O squads mostly useless on D take away GL's which are versatile. So it's like you do the same thing every single round. I am a defense fanatic so I do really well on that side of the ball but 5v5 requires more thought because the squads are more versatile in 5's.

    What I'm getting is that you don't like attacking in 3v3. But the fun you get out of your 5v5 defense (as you say it requires more thought and you do well), is maybe also found on the offense side of 3v3. That's probably where the most thought is required. Not just because you can only use 3 and have to make hard choices sometimes, but also because there are more squads, and it becomes a balancing act to make sure you have enough teams with synergy and the right tools for each squad.
  • BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    Would even better players opt for 2v2? Or maybe even better players than that opt for 1v1? The problem is that the game dynamic has been made for 5v squads. It's also a real let down to spend time gearing a toon that will ride the bench for 4 weeks and you get no value out of it.

    It seems like the rational thing to do would be put it to the Pepsi challenge instead of forcing people to lose large swaths of their rosters because people have an ideological predisposition. It kind of sucks.

    Sorry for degrading it, I shouldn't have come in spicy. It's just that man it's so boring.

    I look forward to your response.

    Maybe I shouldn’t say the “best players” but rather the players who want to become better. I think 5v5 teams are pretty much presets and have little variety compared to 3v3, mostly because of how strong the offensive meta game is. You have to operate under the assumption that your opponent will get a full clear because there is a counter for every defensive team these days. And for the teams that do have variety (looking at you GL Rey), the counters are so strong that in human hands, can account for any deviation from the norm. 3v3 requires you to have a little more than surface level understanding, since the best teams aren’t as know, because every variant of a team has value.

    To me, a 4v4 lineup would just be 5v5 minus the weakest link and for most teams this is obvious, but 3v3 is different because that character in the fourth spot might be more valuable than a character in the 3rd spot. For me, when using 501st, I would drop ARC trooper, the named clones and GAS can hold on well enough on their own. But in 3v3, I would drop Rex next and have him lead his own team. If anything, Rex is 2nd or 3rd strongest links in that team (depends on where you want to rank 5s); that turn meter gain, Rexilate, and speed boost from the unique is invaluable. I wouldn’t want to bench him in 4v4, but for 3v3, I wouldn’t want to bench him either, but find another way to use him since his lead still works well to this day.

    For 2v2, I think it would be too much surface-level thinking since many characters are made to work in pairs, ie. The Revans and the Bastilas, Han and Chewie, RH Finn and RH Poe, etc. I can see it becoming stale quite quickly. Same with a 1v1 meta game. It would only be the strongest characters with more preset counters. Rey would murder everything except maybe SLKR, but that ultimate ability might say otherwise.

    I understand your point about characters sitting on the side for 4 weeks. Many are tuned for 5v5, and I would really like to use my Moff Gideon in an effective setting more than 6 months of the year on average moving forward. But I think something that you and I can agree on, is that more content would make this concern much less significant. Don’t get me wrong, conquest has been great, but it doesn’t force me to stretch out my roster like say, for example, a raid would. That forced aspect helps to create incentive. For example, I use Palpatine and Vader more than I do my bounty hunters in PvP, but I would absolutely use Bounty Hunters over those two any day (Ep 1 Mando lead looks built for the raids, btw). In conquest, I could use whoever I wanted to and with the right data disks, I can make any lineup work. Conquest is very much a data disk meta and less so a character meta; Beskar Mando with stacking offense upon dropping under 100% health and combined with the threshold repeater disk, can delete entire teams with 20 whistling birds. But apart from that, I struggle to find where I can use him effectively. He is great in 5v5 with Han and Chewie, and decent otherwise. If there was content that allowed me to take advantage of the characters I might bench in PvP (like Beskar Mando) would be happy to accept alternative reasons to gear them up.

    This is an interesting read. I don't play with the assumption my opponent will get a full clear ever I always assume I will get key stops and I typically do. But I'm sure this changes up in the 6-7m GP range when people are consolidated pretty much and there isn't much variance in rosters. Given that life is different at different GP a choice between 3v3 and 5v5 seems rational. They give us a choice between "hard" and "normal" in Conquest. Choices are good, usually. People like choices, and also choices help reveal what people actually like much more than force.

    Good points that I can understand. I'm just not getting anything out of it. I like to use my roster.

    The choices I understand, but for any content there are teams that are ideal, but have different viabilities all around. I would pick the team with the most overall viability because I can get the most value out of it. That isn’t really my choice though, the circumstances of the situation are making it for me and I have to take them to help my guild. Difficulties are different though. Some people dislike conquest because they can’t make progress through the normal mode. A large part of difficulty is accessibility of content. A veteran player who can master normal in 4 days would opt for Hard mode so conquest doesn’t become easy to the point of stale for them. 3v3 breaking up the monotony of 5v5 is similar in this sense; to keep 5v5 from becoming stale too quickly, like how winter tires prolong the longevity of three season tires by facing the conditions of winter, while the three season tires maintain their quality by not being used. My biggest concern is that people who choose only 5v5 would eventually grow tired of it and instead of switching to 3v3, demand changes be made to 5v5.

    That’s just my opinion though. Our experiences shape our opinions and you and I have clearly had very different ones. I feel myself becoming a better player in 3v3 than I am in 5v5, simply because 3v3 demands a higher level of thinking, provided your opponent actually engages. I have been fortunate enough to find opponents who are willing to make things more challenging for me. I lost my last round simply because my opponent played better than me. From your account, it seems 3v3 isn’t helpful for you because your opponents aren’t engaging in the mode. You wouldn’t gain as much as me because I have faced tougher competition that has forced me to stretch my knowledge of the game. This isn’t anyone’s fault really, it’s just a difference in luck.
  • Wimma
    152 posts Member
    Hate 3v3, but only way to get rewards, so I do it (made Kyber, just really dislike the mode).
    A number in our guild just sign up and let it auto every week, as they too hate it, and would prefer 5v5.
    Would love to have 3v3 and 5v5 on at the same time so we can choose which one to do (like normal vs hard conquest - choice is good!). Then we'd actually see what people prefer also.
    If a majority actually like it, the rest of us can just suck it up and not complain again.
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Wimma wrote: »
    Hate 3v3, but only way to get rewards, so I do it (made Kyber, just really dislike the mode).
    A number in our guild just sign up and let it auto every week, as they too hate it, and would prefer 5v5.
    Would love to have 3v3 and 5v5 on at the same time so we can choose which one to do (like normal vs hard conquest - choice is good!). Then we'd actually see what people prefer also.
    If a majority actually like it, the rest of us can just suck it up and not complain again.

    But those of us who do like it enjoy it more knowing it makes the rest of you miserable.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Wimma wrote: »
    Hate 3v3, but only way to get rewards, so I do it (made Kyber, just really dislike the mode).
    A number in our guild just sign up and let it auto every week, as they too hate it, and would prefer 5v5.
    Would love to have 3v3 and 5v5 on at the same time so we can choose which one to do (like normal vs hard conquest - choice is good!). Then we'd actually see what people prefer also.
    If a majority actually like it, the rest of us can just suck it up and not complain again.

    But those of us who do like it enjoy it more knowing it makes the rest of you miserable.

    You're like one of those people who enjoy scratching athletes foot huh. Wishing it on others is just mean, man.
  • Wimma wrote: »
    Hate 3v3, but only way to get rewards, so I do it (made Kyber, just really dislike the mode).
    A number in our guild just sign up and let it auto every week, as they too hate it, and would prefer 5v5.
    Would love to have 3v3 and 5v5 on at the same time so we can choose which one to do (like normal vs hard conquest - choice is good!). Then we'd actually see what people prefer also.
    If a majority actually like it, the rest of us can just suck it up and not complain again.

    Nobody knmy guild likes it. Groans when it comes up. A whole month too. Its insufferable.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    I'm not sure whose brainchild this is but when will this mode return again? It really breaks up the monotony of 5v5, opening up so many opportunities for theorycrafting new toon/ability/synergy combinations.

    I can't imagine this is unpopular with anyone capable of thinking for themselves.

    It seems you are confused. The gripe isn't that it's "hard". I have no problem winning 99% of my 3v3 matches. Rather it is b-o-r-i-ng. Im not finding it as difficult as you.
  • TVF
    30985 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?

    Because you hate 3v3 yet make all these boasts about how good you are at it. If you can't back it up with proof then no one believes you.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • I am a long way from being one of the best players. I’m only 4.7m gp; only a couple of tours into Div 1 and although I do tend to win more matches than lose I know I have a lot to learn and a lot more fight experience to get before I consider myself even a ‘better’ player. For this reason I really like 3 v 3. I learn a lot more from it and it breaks up the monotony of seeing the same 5 v 5 teams. It also brings new life back to old toons (I had a real struggle with a relicked Wiggs and Leia crew last round). There’s so many 5 toon modes (and conquest is making them fun as well) why not have a bit more room in your heart for 3s in GAC?
  • TVF wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    BioHazard wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I know it's hard to be flexible but some people actually like that.

    What seems "hard to be flexible" is the idea that everyone has to do it. It seems like "flexible" would be offering a choice of 3v3 or 5v5. I would bet my next paycheck that if given the choice there wouldn't be enough opt-ins for 3v3 to even have a decent season.

    I rest my case.

    Please rest your case. You didn't make a very point when betting your next paycheck.

    I already did rest my case. Why are you asking me to do something after I did it? What point did I not make? You think the majority of people will choose 3v3 over 5v5? Clarify what you mean by your drive-by snark?

    First off, welcome to the forums. I think you are right; the majority of people will pick 5v5, but the best players will pick 3v3. You are right to suggest that synergies are limited in 3v3, but it is adversity that everyone faces. The players who work around this challenge best will come out the best players. Grand Arena was meant to be competitive; its sole purpose is to find the best GoH players. And if people keep defaulting to 5v5, it will become stale much quicker. Some could argue TW already is, and TW is a pretty similar landscape to Grand Arena. 3v3 has enough nuance to be different enough from 5v5 (probably more so than 4v4) but not extremely limiting like 2v2 or 1v1. It also helps make for some more creative feats and plays. If you aren't interested in 3v3, try changing up your strategy, especially if winning comes easily to you (I'm guessing that's why in OP you said you were disinterested). Try to engage with the content instead of degrading it here. You might find something you really enjoy along the way.

    Yay. Thanks so much for putting thought into this discussion. Why do you think the "best" players would choose 3v3? I'm certainly one of the "best" players given my lifetime GAC record and I have zero trouble in 3v3. In fact, the few losses I have incurred in this game mode were at the end when I was so bored I just started trying crazy stuff to make it interesting. I'll be 11-1 in this dreadful recurrence of 3v3.

    What's your gg link?

    Why do you want my GG link?

    Because you hate 3v3 yet make all these boasts about how good you are at it. If you can't back it up with proof then no one believes you.

    Oh. I really don't care what you believe is the thing because that is completely immaterial to my complaint. I could be the worst player ever and my point would still hold. I just mentioned I win every round pretty much so that this could be eliminated as the motivation of my dislike for 3v3.
Sign In or Register to comment.