4v4, Black Sheep, or Diamond in the rough?

[Richard LeMoon]

Step right up and have a vote!

What do you think of 4v4 matches? Why do you like or hate them? What can be improved or removed?

[Naoura]

Best way to have a team-fight and team-based combat. 3v3 might be a little less chaotic, but does require an awful lot more cohesion. It allows you to define roles for everyone and attempt to make very specific tasks for each member. Sniper, defender, guardian, assassin, that sort of thing. MOBA style.

[RearAdmiralZill]

While I agree with Naoura, the biggest issue I have with them is actually getting people to do those roles and not just having a free-for-all. Sure that "can" be fun but 4 boats hitting you feels special.

[Schwalbe]

I remember having lots of fun, and one playing one fairly decent 4v4 an evening... My first serious ranks of piloting were done on carrofish and sniper mobula on Red Sepulcher.

[Atruejedi]

4 vs. 4 and 3 vs. 3 Master Race member here.

4 vs. 4 would be much more acceptable if Muse would hurry up and #AdaptTheMaps while also giving their game an optimization pass/patch. Many player's PC performance seems to suffer exponentially when there are 8 ships in a match. And the massive memory leaks don't help either...

I've actually received PMs from "veterans" who get upset with me for setting up 4 vs. 4 lobbies because then these paragons of the community can't find any 2 vs. 2s to stomp in. Seriously pitiful.

Just demonstrates to me that 2 vs. 2 is the real cancer of the game. #StackNStomp

[Unarmed Civilian]

I like 3v3 more.

Grouping up and personal decision-making is more vital than in 4v4, but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much as in Goldfish-Pyra v Pyra-Pyra. Good old 12 players versus 12 players.

Ideally to me, 3v3 would be the most common type of match in the game, with 2v2s in second, and 4v4s as the rare oddity.

4v4s to me are like 32 person servers in TF2. They're sometimes fun, but you better like chaos spam, and feeling like you can't change the tide at times. There's also the fact that half of the time they're running Crazy King, which I personally loathed as the most unfair and unbalanced gamemode (advantageous spawns, unintuitive plays heavily favoring anti-balloon builds) before Skyball took its place, and do not have a King of the Hill map, which is my personal favorite mode.

[Daft Loon]

KOTH is coming to 4v4  , with the now renamed "Breach Occupation" map. The question is which of 3 reasons is responsible for the horrible mangling of suggested name and mode theme:
1 - They really insist on using a game mode themed name even though only 1 map will have the theme.
2 - We will soon be seeing the amazingly renamed "City occupation" and "Giant basket of sandstorms occupation" koth maps.
3 - They expect to be releasing more koth maps and want to start the theme with this one.

Things 4v4 needs to get beyond 'meh, at least it averages out the balance a bit'
-Something to make crazy king less of a scenic tour of the least scenic maps and more of an actual airship combat game.
-Some kind of fix to the inherent spawn camping of dunes and sepulcher
-Some medium sized maps

[Atruejedi]

...but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much...

Disagree. I love flanking on Sepulcher and Dunes. It isn't a problem with the maps, map size, or game mode, it's a probably with a lack of experienced players in the lobby. Which is fine by me. I'm all about growing. I'll deal with it.

Ideally to me, 3v3 would be the most common type of match in the game...

I could deal with this, but I really do see 2 vs. 2 as cancer on the game because of the small player base essentially "promoting" stacking and stomping.

4v4s to me are like 32 person servers in TF2. They're sometimes fun, but you better like chaos spam, and feeling like you can't change the tide at times.

Hm. I blame the map spawns for this one. Paritan, for example, desperately needs the spawns adjusted. I already logically and visually explained how to do this to Muse, so let's see if they take heed; as it is now it's an unfair clusterfuck (see here). But even Water Hazard has this problem: the initial spawns are absurdly close to each other, ESPECIALLY in 4 vs. 4 VIP... Muse just needs to show us all the spawns and give us an editor. We'll do the work for them!

There's also the fact that half of the time they're running Crazy King, which I personally loathed as the most unfair and unbalanced gamemode (advantageous spawns, unintuitive plays heavily favoring anti-balloon builds)

Muse needs to #AuditTheSpawns. They've admitted they never really bothered thinking about how they could improve Crazy King and the spawn system, so even if we proposed changes, there's no infrastructure to accomodate those changes. Perhaps Alliance will change that. Hopefully. I rag on this issue here.

...before Skyball took its place...

Don't get me started...

...and do not have a King of the Hill map, which is my personal favorite mode.

GET ME STARTED! #YoureWelcome

KOTH is coming to 4v4  , with the now renamed "Breach Occupation" map. The question is which of 3 reasons is responsible for the horrible mangling of suggested name and mode theme:
1 - They really insist on using a game mode themed name even though only 1 map will have the theme.
2 - We will soon be seeing the amazingly renamed "City occupation" and "Giant basket of sandstorms occupation" koth maps.
3 - They expect to be releasing more koth maps and want to start the theme with this one.

See above link. And I still hate all of the VIP map names. Groan.

Things 4v4 needs to get beyond 'meh, at least it averages out the balance a bit'
-Something to make crazy king less of a scenic tour of the least scenic maps and more of an actual airship combat game.

I actually really enjoy it SOMETIMES... when the spawns don't instantly fuck one team. It has tons of potential, it just needs the spawn system revamped.

-Some kind of fix to the inherent spawn camping of dunes and sepulcher

...Hm... perhaps "randomize" the Dust Storm? Instead of just rows 5 and 6, have it alternate randomly through rows 3/4 and 7/8 after the initial middle rows to force the relocation of fleets. Less predictable. I know I'm constantly telling allies to stay the hell out of rows 5/6 and get comfy in rows 4 and 7, so this could work (and screw me in the process, but all in the name of gameplay #ChristFigure).

-Some medium sized maps

#CanyonCantWait... Been begging for Canyon as 3 vs. 3 VIP and 4 vs. 4 VIP and DM for... months? Also no reason we can't have 3 vs. 3 Labyrinth KOTH... And why don't we have that Battle for the Ball map turned into a DM map called Graveyard? Essentially it would be a larger Duel at Dawn! You guys need to email this petition and spread it among your clan mates and the community at large:

click me click me #AdaptTheMaps petition click me

[Daft Loon]

Things 4v4 needs to get beyond 'meh, at least it averages out the balance a bit'
-Something to make crazy king less of a scenic tour of the least scenic maps and more of an actual airship combat game.

I actually really enjoy it SOMETIMES... when the spawns don't instantly fuck one team. It has tons of potential, it just needs the spawn system revamped.

Fixing the starting point random bias would be good for Refinery in 3v3 but the 4v4 maps will still be far too large to be anything but tedious.

-Some kind of fix to the inherent spawn camping of dunes and sepulcher

...Hm... perhaps "randomize" the Dust Storm? Instead of just rows 5 and 6, have it alternate randomly through rows 3/4 and 7/8 after the initial middle rows to force the relocation of fleets. Less predictable. I know I'm constantly telling allies to stay the hell out of rows 5/6 and get comfy in rows 4 and 7, so this could work (and screw me in the process, but all in the name of gameplay #ChristFigure).

The dust storm is just a secondary contribution to the main problem - a team that camps in their spawn essentially re-spawns 60s or so faster gaining a large advantage over anyone trying to actually attack. The best I can think of is having some extra spawn points that activate based on which rows teams have ships in ex - if blue are all located in 6/7/8 and red advance up to 4/5 they gain some spawn points in 4/5. Or maybe just giving both teams some spawn points in 4 and 5 respectively.

[Unarmed Civilian]

...but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much...

Disagree. I love flanking on Sepulcher and Dunes. It isn't a problem with the maps, map size, or game mode, it's a probably with a lack of experienced players in the lobby. Which is fine by me. I'm all about growing. I'll deal with it.

what

I think you misread or I miscommunicated. In my opinion, grouping up and personal decisions matter more the fewer ships there are, as you make a larger contribution. Larger ship counts let you have flankers without worrying as much about not being grouped up. Flanking is even more advantageous in 4v4 than 3v3 and 2v2, since you lose less firepower from your main fleet to have a flanker.

I'm not sure if you think that I think flanking is bad or something, but I love flanking. I have very average reactions and technical skill in all games, so I rely the surprise factor and flanking to make up for it.

[Atruejedi]

...but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much...

Disagree. I love flanking on Sepulcher and Dunes. It isn't a problem with the maps, map size, or game mode, it's a probably with a lack of experienced players in the lobby. Which is fine by me. I'm all about growing. I'll deal with it.

what

I think you misread or I miscommunicated. In my opinion, grouping up and personal decisions matter more the fewer ships there are, as you make a larger contribution. Larger ship counts let you have flankers without worrying as much about not being grouped up. Flanking is even more advantageous in 4v4 than 3v3 and 2v2, since you lose less firepower from your main fleet to have a flanker.

I'm not sure if you think that I think flanking is bad or something, but I love flanking. I have very average reactions and technical skill in all games, so I rely the surprise factor and flanking to make up for it.

That "but" made me think you didn't think it was possible in 4 vs. 4 matches for whatever reason even though you did think it was possible in 3 vs. 3. Miscommunication, then. That confused me. Sorry!

[Richard LeMoon]

Get more people voting in here. Find people that don't visit the forum and tell them to vote! Just forum goers would be a bad cross section. Every vote matters. Voting in polls is not just a right, it is a DUTY! Don't make a kitten cry.

[Hoja Lateralus]

I think 3v3 KOTH should be a default way to play the game, as 2v2 dm is now.
*3v3 is more tactical than 2v2 in general
*point of conflict makes people go into fight quickly, makes a match more purposeful and prevents canyon/dunes bullshit
*if you have troubles with grasping KOTH mechanics it clearly means that you should turn off the computer and ask your mommy to buy you some coloring books.
The drawbacks are of course:
*necessity for bigger lobbies
*riddiculously small map pool for KOTH

Also 4v4 matches are hard to judge since they have like... 3 maps? Dunes, Sepulcher, Sepulcher-CK? I think 4v4's are like Bo5 matches in CS:GO - maybe not very good for everyday thing but very good in right doses at right times.