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 GamertagThese 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.
26-2 Aerographic
48-4 Relapsive
34-1 Blackhawk570
41-2 HellSpawn 101
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.
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.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.
I hope you can consider implementing 4v4s back in next war.
FC Media Links