What do you think about clashes larger than 4vs4 ? | Forums

[MrJoker.]

What do you think about clashes larger than 4vs4 ?. Certainly better look to battle the players themselves , eg 15 vs 15 than 4 vs 4 and bots . I think it's more burdened by our internet connection and equipment but have looked and played better. Of course this is only a suggestion and getting to know your opinion .
What do you think about it?

[SerWarhammer]

What do you think about clashes larger than 4vs4 ?. Certainly better look to battle the players themselves , eg 15 vs 15 than 4 vs 4 and bots . I think it's more burdened by our internet connection and equipment but have looked and played better. Of course this is only a suggestion and getting to know your opinion .
What do you think about it?

I think 4 vs 4 is fine for that mode they showed at E3. perhaps in other modes they could fit more players. such a mode "Kill the King" as suggested in another thread. we must see how the game behaves and to view it, we must first. ..... PLAY THE BETA!!!!!!!

[MrJoker.]

I think 4 vs 4 is fine for that mode they showed at E3. perhaps in other modes they could fit more players. such a mode "Kill the King" as suggested in another thread. we must see how the game behaves and to view it, we must first. ..... PLAY THE BETA!!!!!!!

Yes Bro, we must !!!

[Dead1y-Derri]

I think 4v4 is fine depending on the mode.

They might introduce a ground war mode where maybe there is 8 v 8.

[MrJoker.]

I wonder why they did not 5vs5 , this is a very popular solution in many games , perhaps because they wanted to stand out .

[Dead1y-Derri]

I wonder why they did not 5vs5 , this is a very popular solution in many games , perhaps because they wanted to stand out .

Perhaps they didn't think it would work well in objective modes. It could also be about team balance as well as the game progresses. When you have 5 team mates if one team gets destroyed it could be 1 against 3 instead of 1 against 2.

I think team games tend to go well in multiples of 4, 6 or 8.

[MrJoker.]

Perhaps they didn't think it would work well in objective modes. It could also be about team balance as well as the game progresses. When you have 5 team mates if one team gets destroyed it could be 1 against 3 instead of 1 against 2.

I think team games tend to go well in multiples of 4, 6 or 8.

There is something about it. You're right.

[supabeatsbat]

The bigger the better IMO.
We should at least have 32 vs 32, depending on the map of course.

[RADTrooper]

I'm not sure I'm a fan of bigger matches with the art of battle system. We've seen players leg it when faced with a three on one - do you think even more on one would be any fun? I think the game's strength will be on a series of one on one fights which are part of a larger battle, and while the logic implies that more players = more battles, the truth is you can do the same thing by respawning the dead without the risk of making the match lopsided.

Part of my concern is again the art of battle used against multiple opponents. I fear that in a three on one, you're just going to be waiting until you get cut down with no hope of victory. I'm not opposed to larger matches, or free for all matches, so long as the developers take a good look at whether their system will work in those settings. I don't think it can.

[Warphorntek]

Matters map scale , mod type , latency , and devs xD I would welcome it