Removal of 3v3

"StarSon;c-2428577" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428526" wrote:
Why do we care if one side gets way more engagement?

Because it then erodes both sides. You don't like 3v3? Well, good news, it's already optional. Just don't play it.

I wouldn't agree that it is optional because it is a source (for some even the main source) for crystals.

I agree that it would be nice if something would be changed because in addition of what has been stated it also is partly responsible why bigger accounts drop to lower leagues.

"BubbaFett;c-2428582" wrote:

"Lumiya;c-2428581" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2428577" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428526" wrote:
Why do we care if one side gets way more engagement?

Because it then erodes both sides. You don't like 3v3? Well, good news, it's already optional. Just don't play it.

I wouldn't agree that it is optional because it is a source (for some even the main source) for crystals.

I agree that it would be nice if something would be changed because in addition of what has been stated it also is partly responsible why bigger accounts drop to lower leagues.

You have likely seen me post this in other threads but, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, CG should do something with these bigger accounts that drop due to inactivity ie. setting them aside in their own division where they fight themselves so that they don't affect the gameplay / enjoyment of others...

I'd prefer to get the root cause of the problem fixed rather than see them implement a solution that effects the entire remaining player base....

Yeah, that is an issue in itself. And I agree. Something really needs to be done about that and there were a few good ideas floating around the forums, including yours ?

"BubbaFett;c-2428580" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428576" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428571" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428557" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428544" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428524" wrote:
I'd argue CG implementing 3v3 took away from those of us that liked it when it was all 5v5. CG could always run them concurrently and let us all sign up for the one we prefer.

This doesn't work when the entire premise of GAC is to pit the entire player base against itself and reward based on ranking....

Then CG could just remove 3v3 from the game... or redefine their premise.

Or just keep things as they are.....

Or don't becuase many people don't like 3v3. I've heard two arguments here against letting players choose. One is that 3v3 would be underpopulated because people don't like it as much (not much of an argument for forcing people to play it). The other is that it goes against some premise that is hardly set in stone.

You have been around this forum long enough to know that "many" people don't like "many" things in this game... If it weren't for complaints this place would be a ghost town....

If we want to speak in terms of compelling arguments I don't see any being made as to why the status quo should change either....

Well.. the status quo was only 5v5... twice. But, since alternating 3v3/5v5 has been around longer in total than only 5v5, I'll accept it as status quo.

Why should it change? Because it'd make the players happy. Maybe enough to spend money?

Why shouldn't it change? Because it will take time/resources from CG that could be better spent elsewhere.

Seeing where CG has spent their time and energy as of late, I'm okay with 3v3 still being around. But I'll always mention my preferred alternative when it comes up because sometimes CG does make changes.

Once upon a time, I spent days arguing with Kyno about how GAC should have a ladder or elo that determines rank and to do away with GP matchmaking. I was told it would never happen. And it did! I am in no way saying that they made the changes because I asked them to. But maybe they picked up on the discussion (I wasn't the only one asking for something similar).

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428592" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428580" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428576" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428571" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428557" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428544" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428524" wrote:
I'd argue CG implementing 3v3 took away from those of us that liked it when it was all 5v5. CG could always run them concurrently and let us all sign up for the one we prefer.

This doesn't work when the entire premise of GAC is to pit the entire player base against itself and reward based on ranking....

Then CG could just remove 3v3 from the game... or redefine their premise.

Or just keep things as they are.....

Or don't becuase many people don't like 3v3. I've heard two arguments here against letting players choose. One is that 3v3 would be underpopulated because people don't like it as much (not much of an argument for forcing people to play it). The other is that it goes against some premise that is hardly set in stone.

You have been around this forum long enough to know that "many" people don't like "many" things in this game... If it weren't for complaints this place would be a ghost town....

If we want to speak in terms of compelling arguments I don't see any being made as to why the status quo should change either....

Well.. the status quo was only 5v5... twice. But, since alternating 3v3/5v5 has been around longer in total than only 5v5, I'll accept it as status quo.

Why should it change? Because it'd make the players happy.

Which players?

The ones that are happy to choose the mode they prefer. Presumably, most would be happy playing their preferred mode all the time.

"Lumiya;c-2428581" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2428577" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428526" wrote:
Why do we care if one side gets way more engagement?

Because it then erodes both sides. You don't like 3v3? Well, good news, it's already optional. Just don't play it.

I wouldn't agree that it is optional because it is a source (for some even the main source) for crystals.

Not really a problem in the current system where players (except at the top of k1) tend to 50% win rate by design.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428664" wrote:
The ones that are happy to choose the mode they prefer. Presumably, most would be happy playing their preferred mode all the time.

Gac test player skill in fleet, 3v3 and 5v5. If i’m better/worse in any aspect it will affect my general performance. Choosing only one to compete in is a possibility, but it will make me unhappy (big word, let’s say very, very slightly upset) as i enjoy the current game mode. I’ll risk an analogy: gac is triathlon; if someone doesn’t like swimming, they could propose to choose between swimming and running to go with cycling, but it’s a different sport then.

"Starslayer;c-2428737" wrote:

"Lumiya;c-2428581" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2428577" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428526" wrote:
Why do we care if one side gets way more engagement?

Because it then erodes both sides. You don't like 3v3? Well, good news, it's already optional. Just don't play it.

I wouldn't agree that it is optional because it is a source (for some even the main source) for crystals.

Not really a problem in the current system where players (except at the top of k1) tend to 50% win rate by design.

Of course it is a problem. If you don't play a full season, especially because the system is designed for 50%, you will not automatically win every battle in the next season. And on top of that you get less crystals because you get demoted if you don't participate/ just do the 10 point battle.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428782" wrote:

"Starslayer;c-2428737" wrote:

"Lumiya;c-2428581" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2428577" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428526" wrote:
Why do we care if one side gets way more engagement?

Because it then erodes both sides. You don't like 3v3? Well, good news, it's already optional. Just don't play it.

I wouldn't agree that it is optional because it is a source (for some even the main source) for crystals.

Not really a problem in the current system where players (except at the top of k1) tend to 50% win rate by design.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428664" wrote:
The ones that are happy to choose the mode they prefer. Presumably, most would be happy playing their preferred mode all the time.

Gac test player skill in fleet, 3v3 and 5v5. If i’m better/worse in any aspect it will affect my general performance. Choosing only one to compete in is a possibility, but it will make me unhappy (big word, let’s say very, very slightly upset) as i enjoy the current game mode. I’ll risk an analogy: gac is triathlon; if someone doesn’t like swimming, they could propose to choose between swimming and running to go with cycling, but it’s a different sport then.

I hate analogies, but... these choices already exist. Some runners specialize in a single event, some try multiple, some don't focus on track because they can make more money playing a different sport, etc.

Right now, you have everyone forced into the triathlon. Folks that despise 3v3 take losses they could otherwise win because they can't be bothered. So you already don't have the competitive integrity you seem to desire.

Yep, I took the risky road with the analogy. But I agree with how you interpret it: everybody is forced into the triathlon and I like it that way.
Now I won't argue that some players won't like that, just like some players don't like fleet and have to play it anyway if they want the daily crystal reward.

"Warrior_TI;c-2428781" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428576" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428571" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428557" wrote:

"BubbaFett;c-2428544" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2428524" wrote:
I'd argue CG implementing 3v3 took away from those of us that liked it when it was all 5v5. CG could always run them concurrently and let us all sign up for the one we prefer.

This doesn't work when the entire premise of GAC is to pit the entire player base against itself and reward based on ranking....

Then CG could just remove 3v3 from the game... or redefine their premise.

Or just keep things as they are.....

Or don't becuase many people don't like 3v3. I've heard two arguments here against letting players choose. One is that 3v3 would be underpopulated because people don't like it as much (not much of an argument for forcing people to play it). The other is that it goes against some premise that is hardly set in stone.

Or third option: Because many DO actually like it. Read the comments... way more commenting they like than dislike. I personally Love 3v3 more. It's a game mode. Not all people will like all game modes. Cool thing is you don't have to play or participate in all the modes. I don't participate in TW. See choices. Good for the longevity of the game and not burning out the player base.

Ok then for the record: I don't like it

Yes, remove it. It's boring.