Explore GameReplays...

Rise of the Witch King

When is a 4v4 good?

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 1MauH˙R Oct 6 2017, 17:13 PM
I'd like to know everyone's opinion on this:

When do you think a 4v4 game was worth going through the struggles of getting it going?
What does have to happen so you and/or the majority of the players in it can say it was an enjoyable game?
Does it have to go into lategame or can also a 10-15min game be a good one?
Do crazy basetrades on opposite sides have to occur or a comeback after one player lost his fort?

Also, in your experience, how often does one of the many 4v4s you play (or attempt to get started) turn into one of those memorable games that make you wanna play it again? And would you say those few good ones are worth the many fails and one-sided games?

The following is just me rambling over 4v4s a bit:

I'm curious because over the last year or so I observed a kind of crazy tendency in myself and often even more so in others that just seems to make us willing to sacrifice hours just to hopefully get to one of those memorable good 4v4s.
Not only that though, I guess a lot of people in the community also seem to prefer 4v4s, even if it involves tons of waiting-time, because they get to play the game type where the least possible amount of pressure is on them. This is not an accusation btw, it's just why 4v4s have gotten so popular.
I also think that 2-3 years ago, when the 4v4s have started to get so popular (mostly because a group of 2.01 players that have moved over to 2.02 at that time have started to host them), the 4v4s just were more enjoyable for some reason. Maybe it was because of different metas and playstyles, maybe because more good 1v1/2v2 players were active and started playing it too.
And because some older players still have the memory of these times where the average amount 4v4s was higher quality, they are still willing to sacrifice a lot of time to try and get that.

Again, the appeal of 4v4s is very easy to understand:
  • You get to play with the maximum amount of players, which can mean funny chat and mates playing together as they want
  • You dont get punished nearly as much for trying out unrealistic stuff and dont die early just because you're a beginner
  • Beginners themselves get to play with better players and it's not big deal if they drag the team down, it's a way for all players to play something together
  • The games usually drag on a bit longer and people get to see the more "epic" side of the game I suppose (25ers, high level abilities, all heroes etc.)
BUT, seeing as a ridiculously high amount of 4v4s keeps failing for multiple reasons lately and the few 4v4s that actually get to be played out are mostly not super enjoyable (maybe it's subjective but the older players will propably confirm that they used to be more fun), I had to ask myself if it wouldnt be better for the state of the game if we drop them for at least a little bit.

I also know there have always been people who said that 4v4s were "destroying" the game or something and that CW partly died out cause of that, but at this point it really is about spending your gaming time a bit more wisely imo.
A good example for how 4v4s can just wear you down in your will to play were Destroyer's streams I think (and he might confirm this). I remember watching his last bunch of announced livestreams first half of this year and how he and propably everyone else got increasingly frustrated with the amounts of fails and bad games they had. Yet some weird combination of the 4 points above still makes us try a 4v4 over and over again just to get a game that is a bit similar to the few really good 4v4s that we had. I guess something in our brain keeps telling us that it's worth trying.
After a while D would also just go back to a 2v2 (or even 1v1s lately, respect D!) just to get some game going.
I think we should all do the same more often and tone it down to more 2v2s or even only 3v3s. The games are more likely to start and finish normally and it produces more replays since players have to split up for more games.

And last but not least: Yes, 4v4s will keep your skill and understanding of the game relatively low or at least slow down your learning process a lot and also cloud your understanding of balance, certain situations and interactions. That's no secret. You can count that as the other reason why to stop doing 4v4s for a while would be good for the game. But as we all know, sometimes you just wanna get home and spam some Rohirrim or whatever without losing all your eco to two pike battalions.

Also what if I told you I wrote this entire thing here while waiting for a 4v4 to fill? (I didnt but it would be funny)

Posts: 3,707

Game: Rise of the Witch King

Reply to this topic Start new topic

Don't like this display mode? Switch to: Standard


# 2brabox Oct 7 2017, 11:27 AM
Good 4v4 happens if:
a) the majority of the players are decent 1v1/2v2 players
b) teams coordinate reasonably
c) lag is kept to a minimum

I don't add the "teams are balanced" because that's a given. You need that in 1v1 and 2v2 as well. In fact, getting balancing teams in 4v4 is per definition more likely because you have more to mix and match. If 1/4 of the players is a noob, you won't get a balanced 2v2, but you could still do 4v4.

Anyway those conditions are all pretty rare, and in my experience 5% of the 4v4 qualify as "good" for me and I tend to avoid them. You often spend way too long setting up the game, and you end up wasting 30 min on 20 mins of gameplay that would've been 15 min without the lag. That's a "play density" of 50%.

In addition: the more lag, the less macro matters. You can have good APM and multi-tasking, but if the game happens at 75% speed, everyone can macro manage better so your advantage is reduced.

Posts: 4,268

Game: Rise of the Witchking 2.01


Don't like this display mode? Switch to: Standard

Posts in this topic

MauH˙R   When is a 4v4 good?   Oct 6 2017, 17:13 PM
bushit   hmm ill start doing forward stables on nandu again   Oct 6 2017, 18:38 PM
MattysMirks   Interesting thoughts mau... Was thinking it over ...   Oct 6 2017, 18:40 PM
MauH˙R   2) The people - my 4v4 addiction came in the days...   Oct 6 2017, 18:46 PM
bushit   http://media.giphy.com/media/13jtworHUEZhIY/gip...   Oct 6 2017, 18:51 PM
Thoon   It's an interesting trend and not one limited ...   Oct 6 2017, 20:03 PM
TheDestroyer001   As for why, I think you touched on good points: c...   Oct 7 2017, 04:12 AM
Jaberwaukee   Never   Oct 6 2017, 20:20 PM
Turgon   for me a good 4v4 happens when 8 players go to ing...   Oct 7 2017, 07:11 AM
Muadd   What makes a good 4v4 game. Me in it. When do I wa...   Oct 7 2017, 12:00 PM
Mako   I totally agree with Thoon. Rotwk now isn't a...   Oct 7 2017, 12:22 PM
sleeper   when muadd rage quits within 5 mins because he get...   Oct 7 2017, 13:59 PM
Ab3r`   The best 4v4 games are when you know all the playe...   Oct 7 2017, 16:41 PM
brabox   The best 4v4 games are when you know all the play...   Oct 7 2017, 16:47 PM
TheRanger_   I've played very few 4v4 games but I would hav...   Oct 9 2017, 05:14 AM
Mako   When do you think a 4v4 game was worth going throu...   Oct 22 2017, 22:41 PM
Excelsior   The best 4v4 games are when you know all the play...   Oct 24 2017, 10:13 AM
Muadd   I tend to agree. For me, it's mostly about th...   Oct 24 2017, 15:15 PM
Mako   Those 4v4 we played years ago were obviously a lo...   Oct 24 2017, 16:38 PM
TaDa!   I think soft rotwk counter system that we love so ...   Oct 24 2017, 18:15 PM
Mako   #TheViper&#Daut   Oct 24 2017, 18:19 PM
Ab3r`   #TheViper&#Daut A fellow AoE2 fan?   Oct 24 2017, 19:42 PM
Mako   A fellow AoE2 fan? Ofc.   Oct 24 2017, 20:11 PM

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)