3v3 literally destroys 40% of our investment
Full disclosure: I find 3v3 stupid. In 3v3 you usually build team from the typical meta teams at 5v5 but then the two toons that are left out are usually useless (exceptions exists such as NS, and ...
Forum Discussion
"hoberfinkle;c-1787124" wrote:"Nikoms565;c-1786818" wrote:
The squad synergies, leadership abilities, etc. were clearly designed, "tested" and "balanced" for 5 v.5.
3v3 just feels like a weak (and not very good) attempt to make things "fresh".... without CG actually doing anything content-wise to truly make things more engaging.
If this were a poll, my vote would be for 5v5, all the time.
what about the team literally called the "sith triumvirate".
yeah, not the best argument, but I don't think the characters were created for specifically 5v5 teams. looking at the crazy synergies between characters like death trooper and krenic are a good example of toons created for just one other toon.
3v3 is a new way of approaching the game rather than the same old thing over and over and over and over again.
The Triumverate are lore - not because CG designed them to be a team of 3. Yes, there are synergies between fewer than 5 characters. But many of the teams are balanced to be fighting 5 on 5. Teams that rely on death (NS, DT) or create TM engines based on crits, buffs, debuffs or expose (Imps, Resistance, BH, Ewoks, etc.) - or even Vader's speed based on ally/enemy team composition. Most of those are % based changes having to do with number of allies/enemies affected - and all were originally balanced for 5v5. Several teams almost "require" all 5 members and their respective contributions to even be fun to play - or at least interesting.
3v3 is not a "new way of approaching the game" - it's actually just a spillover from how they ruined ships by going from 5v5 to 3v3 - and one that eliminates designed synergies and team work within the given factions.
