4v4 Battles

[Res]

My goal here is to create a thread not for flaming nor arguing, but one containing legitimate points concerning the existence of 4v4s on battle nights. As you know, FC has recently removed 4v4s entirely, leaving us with only 6v6 and 8v8 battles. Myself and several other members believe 4v4 battles should be brought back into the wars for several reasons including the following:

SLOW BATTLE NIGHTS - Lately, battle nights have been moving along much slower than they have in past wars. Logically, this is because gathering a lobby of 16 is much harder than getting a lobby of 8. I'm not implying we should rid FC of 8v8s entirely, but lessening the amount of 8v8/6v6 matches and increasing the amount of 4v4s can improve the number of games played total, and by each individual member. (As a personal example, this last battle night 4/15/12, I sat in lobby for at least two hours, possibly more, waiting to be put into games. Of those two hours, I was able to participate in two battles. I'm not saying I'd prefer to be in-game the whole time, but the process could use some speeding up that 4v4 battles could give it.)

LESS LIKELY TO TIE - Though it is possible to tie in a 4v4 objective/slayer game, it's far less likely than tying in an 8v8 battle. This would be the case because 8v8s are larger maps where the bases are more defined, making objectives infinitely harder to score than on a 4v4 map.

HARDER TO BOOST - Even though it is in fact possible to boost K/D ratio in 4v4 slayer and objective games, the results are generally not as steep as when people strive to boost in 8v8s. An above average player can easily excel and take advantage of the fact that sprees can go more easily unnoticed in 8v8 maps and game types. With so many people killing/dying, players who would usually end up being targeted for their massive killing sprees can go through a game almost completely undetected. Some examples of this are pulled directly from the stat book and are listed below.


Kills-Deaths Gamertag
26-2 Aerographic
48-4 Relapsive
34-1 Blackhawk570
41-2 HellSpawn 101


These of course are some of the more drastic examples, however there are plenty of 3.0+ K/D's that went unlisted. I understand that boosting to this extent doesn't happen too often, but big team serves as the perfect environment to stack as many kills as possible. There are more than enough .05 and below K/D's to show the other side of boosting. Again, 4v4 games would just make this a bit harder to do.

PREVIOUS SYSTEM WORKED - I believe that you can't fix what isn't broken. Previous attempts to better the site have led to angry/upset members who either kept their mouth shut or packed up their bags and left. That in itself may be partially the cause of smaller lobbies and longer wait-time for battles to begin, since fewer members would obviously make it harder to get 16 people in a game. That aside, the old system worked. I think we should just keep the variety of 4v4, 6v6, and 8v8s seeing as it doesn't take away from the community. Some maps are even played better as 4v4s (Countdown, Battle Canyon, etc.)...

I also feel that there really wasn't enough reason to remove it in the first place.


We have eliminated 4v4 Maps, to bring back the feel of a larger scale of battles for this war. We realize that some people may be disgusted, but our decision is final, and will not be reversed.

This just doesn't seem to suffice, in my opinion. Perhaps if some sort of counter argument to the things I've listed was provided I might feel differently, but as far as I can see, not much has really been addressed. I was told at some point that 4v4s were removed to ensure groups within each army can intermingle and join together, however because bringing back 4v4s would not remove 8v8 opportunities, you could continue to blend groups together in BTB games anyway. Most of the groups are also large enough to assemble teams for 8v8s anyway, so really nothing much has been achieved by removing 4v4s.
I hope you can consider implementing 4v4s back in next war.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Last night was the first balanced battle night, I'd say give it some time. Doesn't really matter to me either way, I care more about Map aesthetics than anything xD Personally I like the 6v6 and 8v8 set-up we have now. The more people recruit, the less waiting time there will be. So if you don't like the waiting time, it's fixable. Tying, meh. Doesn't affect the scoreboard and means you will have to work more as a team to win, since the numbers are larger. Boosting, stats are stats. If we follow the FC Lore, there will be super-soldiers that are better than others.

[Guzzie]

could not agree more with this thread/poll. Please bring 4v4 maps back.

[Yehsus]

I completely agree with bringing back 4v4 maps, however not with those reasons given. Battle nights are consistently long and have been for the 6+ years I've been with this community. It sucks, but we just gotta deal with it.

I dont agree with the "Less Likely to Tie" or the "Boosting" argument. Certainly some maps (such as Hemorrhage) it is extremely difficult to pull a flag successfully, but teamwork and map control (and frankly a little bit of luck) will help those odds. Same thing can be said with any 4v4 gametype. 6v6 + 8v8 just brings more variable to the table, which is why I'm a huge fan of it.



HARDER TO BOOST - Even though it is in fact possible to boost K/D ratio in 4v4 slayer and objective games, the results are generally not as steep as when people strive to boost in 8v8s. An above average player can easily excel and take advantage of the fact that sprees can go more easily unnoticed in 8v8 maps and game types. With so many people killing/dying, players who would usually end up being targeted for their massive killing sprees can go through a game almost completely undetected. Some examples of this are pulled directly from the stat book and are listed below.

This is the argument I hate the most. While there are certainly more ways to kill in BTB gametypes in general, there are certainly equal amount or even MORE ways to be killed. It comes down to the same way you get sprees in 4v4 maps - teamwork, skill, and luck. I cant speak for the first two listed, but I was playing with Blackhawk and Hellspawn in those games they posted those impressive numbers, they were playing their roles as any role in 4v4 to a perfection. Each soldier in Aeneas has a job. Blackhawk was slaying and keeping REDD on respawn while others pushed objective, while Hellspawn played a more supportive role in the Wraith for the same reason listed. While they went +30ish, many of us did not as we continuously put pressure on the objective. I feel like in the long run, it balances out - much like in 4v4s.


Anyways, I'm really straying far offtopic and I apologize. I agree 100% we should have 4v4 maps back I never really understood why we got rid of them, as it adds the diversity to playing new people every night rather than the same 3 groups. I just dont like when people give BTB a negative aspect, cause in my extremely biased opinion it takes more skill due to all these different variables in game.

[Anarchy]

Bring 4v4s back, I agree. However, we may as well simply wait until next war. Do we really even need reasons of argument? They were fun and provided variety. They really didn't need to be removed.

FYI: I didn't even read your post, LOL. I just know I've wanted 4v4s back.

[Mythonian]

I hope you can consider implementing 4v4s back in next war.

I can guarantee you that it will at least be considered. We like to try different things out each war to help them feel more unique and to see what works best in the long run.

Consider the removal of 4v4s an experiment.

The likelihood of implementation of 4v4s in this war are rather slim at this moment, though. Possibly later on, but doing it only two battles into a war is quite unlikely.

[VerbotenDonkey]

FYI: I didn't even read your post, LOL.

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/ZombiePanda9/DidntRead.gif

[bazongaman502]

I say bring back 4v4's, but if it doesnt, i wont be butt hurt by it

[Deathhawk]

4v4's would be chill.

I do like the idea of a "bigger" war, I also think that 6/8 is more balanced, because every member isn't AS crucial. But the better team should still win.

However, 4v4's over a wider selection of quality maps (Finding a good 4v4 is WAY easier than a 8v8.)

That, and that 4v4's offer a personal side to the war. Sure, they can be very competitive, but being in the trenches with your 3 squad mates, it's a great feeling.
4v4's also get WAY more intense. The tides can change so much in one game.


And playing two 8v8 maps in one night is not very fun.

[Blackhawk570]

I like have 8v8s, but there are just way too many. I love anything but 8v8s, but toward the end of the war the 8v8 maps give it a more of a intense feeling. It is like both armies are bringing out everyone in order to defend/or push the final objective which is the BLUE or REDD base.

Also if we bring 4v4s back I promise to sing my infamous FC Anthem during every battle night.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Actually, 4v4 in the front lines, 6v6 in the middle and 8v8s around the Capital DOES sound interesting O.o Although with the way we have the lore, its like we're sending all our forces to secure the frontline right from the get-go. So.

[Gargoyle]

I personally like having no 4v4 because it makes it feel more war like. 4v4 just feels like a small skirmish.


Aside from the feeling, 4v4 creates kinda a stacking problem. It relies more on personal skill than with numbers for higher members. Since you know, we just split armies up for sake of balancing.

[Blackhawk570]

Actually, 4v4 in the front lines, 6v6 in the middle and 8v8s around the Capital DOES sound interesting O.o Although with the way we have the lore, its like we're sending all our forces to secure the frontline right from the get-go. So.

Well with the amount of people I believe we have in the wars now is A LOT. Even though we have a lot asking us to recruit it is only because we only have been playing 8v8s. I believe next war as long as we have the same amount of people (which I am expecting more because more than likely next war will be on halo 4) we could use what you said Quinn and add another 8v8 tier to the front line.

[HellSpawn 101]

i only boost in MM lets get real here but yea i would like to see 4v4 again good stuff intense games right there

[RENGADE 0F FUNK]

Disagree.

The reason for their elimination is that we are a WAR simulation. We want the games to feel like battles that are fought on large scale maps with vehicles and such.

I can understand the reason for wanting them back. But in my opinion, fighting a war in an arena is too... cliche' i guess. It will also be very hard on those who do not play competitively.

Large maps do take longer for set up, yes, but they also give room for more people to play at a time.


Like I said at the beginning, we are a WAR simulation; not a competitive community. War isn't fought in an arena.

[Gargoyle]

^
Agreed. More descriptive than mine ^_^

[Anarchy]

Disagree.

The reason for their elimination is that we are a WAR simulation. We want the games to feel like battles that are fought on large scale maps with vehicles and such.

I can understand the reason for wanting them back. But in my opinion, fighting a war in an arena is too... cliche' i guess. It will also be very hard on those who do not play competitively.

Large maps do take longer for set up, yes, but they also give room for more people to play at a time.


Like I said at the beginning, we are a WAR simulation; not a competitive community. War isn't fought in an arena.

Establishing 4v4s as competitive is a bit rash. Battles in wars aren't always large scale, they can be as finite as two people shooting at each other at times, or have small teams infiltrate a building and such.



Limiting ourselves to 6v6s and 8v8s is about as empty as limiting ourselves to 6v6s and 4v4s. There's no reason to cram our entire battle night into the "big team battle" appeal night after night. At this point we're using tiny 4v4 maps as 6v6s just to find enough maps to fill the warmap. Regardless of the war simulation, people join FC to play halo, 4v4s and all. As proved by the poll results, there was never a point in removing 4v4s. It's kind of like going over to your friend's house in grade school, then having that friend force you to play what they want to play.

Regardless, poll results talk. It provided variety, and we're going to see problems on battle canyon and countdown when they're played when 12 people with 24 grenades are crammed on a map you can run from one side to the other on in 5-10 seconds. There's no point in changing the warmap now, but next war we should learn from that.

[Blackhawk570]

I am pretty sure in real War there are more small scale battles than big scale. It is just that you don't hear about them.

[Jai 006]

4 vs 4's are nice, Especially when for whatever reason your lazy douchebag friends refuse to show. ( I think most of us have experienced the joys of random ringers. ) So a small dose of 4 vs 4's here and there, or even a large influx, I don't care. Just mix it up a little so I don't blow up an orphanage out of boredom.

[Rokkman X]

Maybe 4v4s can be integrated into smaller "missions" or "covert ops". On the war map there are the powerups and such right? Well maybe for a few less credits than to just send counter you can send in a small number of troops to uproot the advantage. The advantage they have will also dictate the gametype played.

[Relapsive]

Actually, 4v4 in the front lines, 6v6 in the middle and 8v8s around the Capital DOES sound interesting O.o Although with the way we have the lore, its like we're sending all our forces to secure the frontline right from the get-go. So.


This idea seems really cool.

As well as i think its a lot better to bring back 4v4's because as much as you say you want a huge map and alot of people that can fight so it makes it more intense, then go play battlefield on the pc. Because 1 out of 2 playlist on reach are made for 4 people on a team. Because thats just what the fan base likes. As well as where not saying to take out 8v8's where just saying add a mixture of things like 4v4 because so far we haven't played 1 6v6 map. It would just be nice to get more of a variety.

[Sangheili Ekim]

^
Agreed. More descriptive than mine ^_^

Agreed, also.

[Gargoyle]

That's another thing I hate about our website. Yeah I'll give ya that, this poll does speak for itself, but lets be honest. Unfortnuatly, there is a large population that don't get on the website enough to vote yes no or maybe for this. So, yeah. There's a large number here in favor, but its impossible to get everyone's opinion, which makes polls weird.

I mean, you never know. The against 4v4 side could end up with more votes if EVERYONE voted.

[Blackhawk570]

That's another thing I hate about our website. Yeah I'll give ya that, this poll does speak for itself, but lets be honest. Unfortnuatly, there is a large population that don't get on the website enough to vote yes no or maybe for this. So, yeah. There's a large number here in favor, but its impossible to get everyone's opinion, which makes polls weird.

I mean, you never know. The against 4v4 side could end up with more votes if EVERYONE voted.


Well same goes for it. I could tell you ALL of Aeneas and Resistance are in favor of 4v4s.

[Relapsive]

^True. In most cases i could agree with the community vote could definitively change but 78% is a big majority already. So i dont think its going to change.

[Anarchy]

That's another thing I hate about our website. Yeah I'll give ya that, this poll does speak for itself, but lets be honest. Unfortnuatly, there is a large population that don't get on the website enough to vote yes no or maybe for this. So, yeah. There's a large number here in favor, but its impossible to get everyone's opinion, which makes polls weird.

I mean, you never know. The against 4v4 side could end up with more votes if EVERYONE voted.

This is similar to my argument that the regular PFC was not for firestorm.

But that was refuted by people saying "if they aren't active on the website, they may as well not be FC members."


My point isn't to bring up the past. My point is that you aren't going to win with that argument. We have almost 30 votes, a little under 1/4th of the community. And this issue isn't as controversial, it's simply suggesting we add in variety, an idea favored by most.

[RaZ Vader]

Maybe 4v4s can be integrated into smaller "missions" or "covert ops". On the war map there are the powerups and such right? Well maybe for a few less credits than to just send counter you can send in a small number of troops to uproot the advantage. The advantage they have will also dictate the gametype played.

Ooh. I like this idea.

and bringing back 4v4's. eh. We may be able to do that this war, but no promises. But most likely will bring them back in the future pending this poll.

(looks like majority wants em back)

Next war we will be gathering all the information that was good. great feedback guys. keep it up

[Guzzie]

I honestly do not see any problems with adding 4v4 maps to this war. First of all, this war has not really developed, it is still in its early stages, a perfect time to do it. Second, countdown and battle creek should not be 6v6 maps, they should be 4v4 maps, nothing would have to be changed on the war map, just the 6v6 after the map as it is listed (that would be two 4v4 maps already added), third, just take some of the 6v6 maps and/or 8v8 maps and replace them with 4v4 maps (FC Zealot and FC Sanctuary were part of FC in previous wars). I honestly do not see this being a huge or labor intensive change. It is an easy change, that from the looks of this poll is what the community wants.

Battle plans have already been made for this coming sunday, and thats fine. If 4v4s are added promptly, they would be available for choosing for any other battle night after this upcoming one.