Give us the option for GAC.
Give us the option to choose between 3 vs 3 and 5 vs 5 at each GAC sign up. Let those of us that want to do 5 vs 5 play 5’s and those that want to do 3 vs 3 play 3’s.
Forum Discussion
63 Replies
"TVF;c-2457965" wrote:
86v86
I see what you did there
Edit: on topic, I am neither a fan of or a hater of 3v3 but I always get a little tired of both depending on dcs."Ranzono;c-2457978" wrote:
The 3v3 haters watching us come up with more options must be sweating rn
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.5310777466.1006/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg"Olddumper;c-2457942" wrote:
It’s like playing monopoly with 25 players
I will definitely watch "Big brother: Monopoly edition".- I wonder how many people quit the game due to 3 vs 3. The game feels so slow right now since without 5 vs 5 GAC there isn’t much to care about. I wonder how much lost revenue it has cost CG over time. The few bucks they get from users investing in 3 vs 3 stuff is probably dwarfed by it.
"Olddumper;c-2458049" wrote:
I wonder how many people quit the game due to 3 vs 3. The game feels so slow right now since without 5 vs 5 GAC there isn’t much to care about. I wonder how much lost revenue it has cost CG over time. The few bucks they get from users investing in 3 vs 3 stuff is probably dwarfed by it.
not many if any."rickertron;c-2458054" wrote:
"Olddumper;c-2458049" wrote:
I wonder how many people quit the game due to 3 vs 3. The game feels so slow right now since without 5 vs 5 GAC there isn’t much to care about. I wonder how much lost revenue it has cost CG over time. The few bucks they get from users investing in 3 vs 3 stuff is probably dwarfed by it.
not many if any.
I bet it’s way more than you think. Users that are already bored or burnt out get a double wammy from 3 vs 3 because it’s an increases time commitment from 5 vs 5 and you care less about it.
More time commitment required + less caring = quit the game.
I bet if they looked at the data people quite proportionally more when 3 vs 3 is running vs 5 vs 5."Olddumper;c-2458089" wrote:
"rickertron;c-2458054" wrote:
"Olddumper;c-2458049" wrote:
I wonder how many people quit the game due to 3 vs 3. The game feels so slow right now since without 5 vs 5 GAC there isn’t much to care about. I wonder how much lost revenue it has cost CG over time. The few bucks they get from users investing in 3 vs 3 stuff is probably dwarfed by it.
not many if any.
I bet it’s way more than you think. Users that are already bored or burnt out get a double wammy from 3 vs 3 because it’s an increases time commitment from 5 vs 5 and you care less about it.
More time commitment required + less caring = quit the game.
I bet if they looked at the data people quite proportionally more when 3 vs 3 is running vs 5 vs 5.
Might be true but doesn’t mean 3v3 is the reason. Correlation doesn’t imply causation- I say full roster vs full roster. One big battle, real war. That would save a lot of time.
"LordDirt;c-2458100" wrote:
I say full roster vs full roster. One big battle, real war. That would save a lot of time.
I don't know, hard to beat one 3v3 battle and done."Olddumper;c-2458049" wrote:
I wonder how many people quit the game due to 3 vs 3. The game feels so slow right now since without 5 vs 5 GAC there isn’t much to care about. I wonder how much lost revenue it has cost CG over time. The few bucks they get from users investing in 3 vs 3 stuff is probably dwarfed by it.
Even if some are quitting because of 3v3, there are much larger reasons they are quitting, like datacrons, lack of communication, ignoring previous parts of the game (TW), horribly bad quality assurance (no beta program), because it's CG, boredom, weariness, bigger better games, and so on.
