Well as 5v5 no ships wasn't brought back or spoken about again. I was hoping 3v3 would go the same way. Just quietly faded out. Or that CG realised it would have a negative effect on the rankings. If you believe in the system, changing the format is a bad idea.
im excited that 3v3 is back i like the change-up it brings for everything. yes its not the best always and some teams are annoying but its still a nice change up.
Well as 5v5 no ships wasn't brought back or spoken about again. I was hoping 3v3 would go the same way. Just quietly faded out. Or that CG realised it would have a negative effect on the rankings. If you believe in the system, changing the format is a bad idea.
It was never stated it was going away, and it hasn't really been away that long. Only since the GAC change. The update with the roster lock gave us the option to set 3v3 defense, so you'd have to be awfully dense to think that wasn't for a reason.
I’m somewhat new to GAC, I hear a lot of people saying the don’t like 3v3. But I haven’t heard anyone explain why. Can someone please explain what it is about 3v3 that bothers many people?
It's mostly that when the game is balanced for 5v5, it's difficult for people to get into the mindset of the 3v3 matches when a lot of the standard counters change. For example, five-person CLS teams can take out higher geared JKR teams. Can a three-person CLS, Han, Chewie take out higher geared JKR core trio? Eh, not so much. What ends up happening is that if you are in the mindset that you need to reduce your squads to core trios, you are left with two supports of a faction that are now in need of a leader. You can maybe find a leader if the same faction, or maybe stick on a generic leader, but can a random second-rate leader do a lot with two supports? It becomes especially problematic given that 3v3 requires more defense teams, but you may feel like you have fewer squads available.
These things aren't as big of issues for people who have adapted to 3v3. You can come up with combos that you may not have thought of otherwise. Sometimes you may have no leader or use an old leader ability that you wouldn't consider in 5v5. There are also so many solo team options that become available. I wouldn't really find much opportunity to send in Han Solo solo in 5v5, but in 3v3, a solo Han Solo can solo more of what's available.
Another trap I think 3v3 detractors may fall into is oversetting defense. Since there are more teams required, you may feel like you don't want to set a really bad squad, so you end up setting too many good teams. You are then stretched on offense, especially if your opponent also turtles. The remedy to that is to remember it's ok to set some weaker squads sometimes. It'll still make your opponent work for it. You need to make sure you have enough for offense.
I like 3v3 as a mode, but I hope we are not getting back to the strictly alternating schedule like before. Somehow it just doesn't feel right that 3v3 should be given the same weight as 5v5 in the Skill Rating. (I know, I know, it's "Skill" Rating, but still...)
I’m somewhat new to GAC, I hear a lot of people saying the don’t like 3v3. But I haven’t heard anyone explain why. Can someone please explain what it is about 3v3 that bothers many people?
I assume they're too lazy to think for themselves, and are used to relying on tried and true defenses and counters that were figured out by other people.
When it actually gets going I don't mind it. However, it's kind of GAC 'lite'. A diluted version of the game. It's never been as popular as the 5v5, which the whole balance is based around.
Diluted? Lite? 3v3 is more challenging than 5v5, not less.
The big problem for me is; we've been working towards getting everybody in their right place for GAC leagues. Now that's all going to be upset by a totally different format.
New matchmaking. More fleets. Omicrons. New characters and ships. New defensive comps & new.counters. New opponents Things change all the time anyway Adapt and prosper... or don't.
I don't get the argument the game is designed for 5v5 as a reason not to do 3v3. It's a different game mode , with different synergies , combinations and strategies. Adjust , adapt , embrace the change and let your skills get you wins.
There are some kits that reference 5 units , but so what , they are less effective in 3s just like omicrons are not effective in some modes. There are also some factions that dont have 5 units that synergize ; so should we not do 5v5 until they release another Tuskin ?No.
We also get to use more of our rosters in 3s, I personally love that aspect.
I love the breaking up of the same old teams week in week out, especially that first week of "how does this work again".
Also as another thought , the game is actually designed to have 6 units in a number of game modes , including fully playable units ie borrow a unit from ally battles. Maybe 6v6 could be a fun change to.
TLDR. 5v5 is one game mode , 3v3 is a different game mode. Play them different. Simple.
3v3 is the sequel trilogy of GAC - pretty much everyone hates it, a vocal minority pretends that it's the best thing ever and the powers that be agree with that minority for some inexplicable reason.
The intention of 3vs3 is clear to me. For players who joined at some point after release, omegas are still a limited resource. So you don't spend these on leader abilities of characters that you never place in the leader slot. For example Mace or Yoda or General Kenobi. With 3vs3 you need a lot more leaders and thus need to invest some of those omegas.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Yes, the list goes on and on. Tanky, high regen characters are harder to take down due to less firepower. Instakills shift the balance way more. And I'm sure I could come up with more if I tried.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
GAS mirror and GAS with 120k protection. It took me already 2-3 rounds of GAS kneeling down in a 5 vs 5 match to kill him off.
Of course maybe it is not smart to play it as mirror in 3 vs. 3 though
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
GAS mirror and GAS with 120k protection. It took me already 2-3 rounds of GAS kneeling down in a 5 vs 5 match to kill him off.
Of course maybe it is not smart to play it as mirror in 3 vs. 3 though
Then kill the sides faster. Or don't mirror. Use one of the other 10 squads that can beat him. I guarantee GAS isn't unkillable in 3v3.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
GAS mirror and GAS with 120k protection. It took me already 2-3 rounds of GAS kneeling down in a 5 vs 5 match to kill him off.
Of course maybe it is not smart to play it as mirror in 3 vs. 3 though
Then kill the sides faster. Or don't mirror. Use one of the other 10 squads that can beat him. I guarantee GAS isn't unkillable in 3v3.
I think the main problem in 3 vs. 3 is that it is a lot harder to defeat GLs with non-GL teams. So the GL advantage is more important than skill in that mode. You just need to put excessive GLs in the front. Especially JMK+Ahsoka+CAT or JMK+GK+CAT may be an immensive block if you can't mirror it
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
GAS mirror and GAS with 120k protection. It took me already 2-3 rounds of GAS kneeling down in a 5 vs 5 match to kill him off.
Of course maybe it is not smart to play it as mirror in 3 vs. 3 though
Then kill the sides faster. Or don't mirror. Use one of the other 10 squads that can beat him. I guarantee GAS isn't unkillable in 3v3.
I think the main problem in 3 vs. 3 is that it is a lot harder to defeat GLs with non-GL teams. So the GL advantage is more important than skill in that mode. You just need to put excessive GLs in the front. Especially JMK+Ahsoka+CAT or JMK+GK+CAT may be an immensive block if you can't mirror it
Replies
It was never stated it was going away, and it hasn't really been away that long. Only since the GAC change. The update with the roster lock gave us the option to set 3v3 defense, so you'd have to be awfully dense to think that wasn't for a reason.
It's mostly that when the game is balanced for 5v5, it's difficult for people to get into the mindset of the 3v3 matches when a lot of the standard counters change. For example, five-person CLS teams can take out higher geared JKR teams. Can a three-person CLS, Han, Chewie take out higher geared JKR core trio? Eh, not so much. What ends up happening is that if you are in the mindset that you need to reduce your squads to core trios, you are left with two supports of a faction that are now in need of a leader. You can maybe find a leader if the same faction, or maybe stick on a generic leader, but can a random second-rate leader do a lot with two supports? It becomes especially problematic given that 3v3 requires more defense teams, but you may feel like you have fewer squads available.
These things aren't as big of issues for people who have adapted to 3v3. You can come up with combos that you may not have thought of otherwise. Sometimes you may have no leader or use an old leader ability that you wouldn't consider in 5v5. There are also so many solo team options that become available. I wouldn't really find much opportunity to send in Han Solo solo in 5v5, but in 3v3, a solo Han Solo can solo more of what's available.
Another trap I think 3v3 detractors may fall into is oversetting defense. Since there are more teams required, you may feel like you don't want to set a really bad squad, so you end up setting too many good teams. You are then stretched on offense, especially if your opponent also turtles. The remedy to that is to remember it's ok to set some weaker squads sometimes. It'll still make your opponent work for it. You need to make sure you have enough for offense.
Standard 5v5 w/ Ships the rest of the time.
The 3v3 never uses as many toons as 5v5 set up even w/ the extra slots so a 4th Character Zone would be good.
No thanks
New matchmaking. More fleets. Omicrons. New characters and ships. New defensive comps & new.counters. New opponents Things change all the time anyway Adapt and prosper... or don't.
You liking something does not make it popular.
What GP problem? Squad-only GAs ended with the introduction of GAC two years ago. We have never had a squad-only GAC.
Thankfully you are not in charge.
Start with only 3 on the field and fog of war the other 2.
Except for LSB and DSB, the first and most basic game mode, in which you can bring a sixth member with a second leader ability.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for TB, where you can summon additional units as you battle more than five opponents in any one wave.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except for Fennec’s lead and CAT’s unique, which are designed exclusively for a different number than five. And Wampa’s Omicron.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Except that the point system in GAC is designed to reward 1v5, 2v5, 3v5, and 4v5 more than 5v5.
This game is designed exclusively for 5v5.
Especially for those whom like to pigeon-hole themselves.
Almost missed the a sarcasm there
There are some kits that reference 5 units , but so what , they are less effective in 3s just like omicrons are not effective in some modes. There are also some factions that dont have 5 units that synergize ; so should we not do 5v5 until they release another Tuskin ?No.
We also get to use more of our rosters in 3s, I personally love that aspect.
I love the breaking up of the same old teams week in week out, especially that first week of "how does this work again".
Also as another thought , the game is actually designed to have 6 units in a number of game modes , including fully playable units ie borrow a unit from ally battles. Maybe 6v6 could be a fun change to.
TLDR. 5v5 is one game mode , 3v3 is a different game mode. Play them different. Simple.
I disagree, but I love the analogy 😂
Yes, the game is designed for 5v5. What you listed here is either inconsequential (LS/DS battles that everyone sims anyway) or specially designed exceptions, not the rule. Besides, PvE allows for much more variability than PvP. If you use PvE as an argument, you might as well claim that we should use raid bosses in GAC. And udersizing is entirely in the player's hands, it's a completely different matter when you voluntarily choose to limit your team's synergy for a reward as opposed to being forced into it by design.
So yes, the game is designed for 5v5 with some exceptions, and all your "arguments" fail.
Ok. 3v3 is a specially designed exception too.
Then show me all the mechanisms and balancing that make sure it actually works well.
Come back 10 May.
I will, and if there really is a rebalance for 3v3, I'm willing to change my stance on it. But it's not just about Starkiller and Gideon, others are affected as well. For example, every stat gain per ally/enemy is reduced and should imo be looked into as well. All in all, making 3v3 properly balanced would require a lot of work.
Also GAS is significantly different. He may take less allies that make him stronger, but you also have less firepower to kill the clones before he rises.
And Wampa might be a beast
Yes, the list goes on and on. Tanky, high regen characters are harder to take down due to less firepower. Instakills shift the balance way more. And I'm sure I could come up with more if I tried.
I think you just change the 5s to 3s.
Less firepower, but less enemies to kill. This is the case for every squad.
GAS mirror and GAS with 120k protection. It took me already 2-3 rounds of GAS kneeling down in a 5 vs 5 match to kill him off.
Of course maybe it is not smart to play it as mirror in 3 vs. 3 though
Then kill the sides faster. Or don't mirror. Use one of the other 10 squads that can beat him. I guarantee GAS isn't unkillable in 3v3.
I think the main problem in 3 vs. 3 is that it is a lot harder to defeat GLs with non-GL teams. So the GL advantage is more important than skill in that mode. You just need to put excessive GLs in the front. Especially JMK+Ahsoka+CAT or JMK+GK+CAT may be an immensive block if you can't mirror it
Maybe...we'll see