Author Topic: Is the idea of 3v3 or more even feasible?  (Read 1663 times)

Offline NeoSuperior

  • Posts: 676
  • Karma: +7/-2
  • Formerly known as "Meister_Neo"
    • View Profile
Is the idea of 3v3 or more even feasible?
« on: May 02, 2014, 02:12:01 AM »
I noticed a lot of people posting in the social media (facebook, steam greenlight, etc.) that they want a 3v3, 4v4 or even 5v5 gamemode. For the purpose of discussing if that idea is feasible at all, I created this thread.

On the first glance anyone would say "sure, why not? The more gamemodes exist and more players in the same match there are, the better, right? So gives us 3v3 now... please!" But is it really that simple? I am not sure and that is the purpose I created this thread, so that people can contribute their ideas and arguments for or against this concept.

To start this, we should take a look at 2v2, which most of us expierenced already, first. What can happen? How can the game go? Well there are lots of possibilities, but for the sake of simplicity I will break it down to 3 tactics for both teams each:

On the spy side it could happen that the spies are inexperienced and make blunders like trying to reach an objective in a "limboline", i.e. the second spy doesn't enter before the first one got killed by a merc for some reason.
Another possibility would be the spies going for different objectives, i.e. starting a "solo combo", possibily using a tactic like 1 spy creating a commotion on one end on the map first, which may or may not influence the merc on the other side of the map to go for the aid of his mate, which may or may not create an opening for the 2nd spy.
The third possibility is both spies going for one objective together so that, for example, one spy can hack a computer while the other distracts the merc(s).

On the merc side we have following tactics:
The first one is each merc defending a set area by himself, which can, depending on the map and circumstances, make sure that there are no, or at least very few openings for the spies to sneak through, as the mercs can efficiently patrol their areas.
Another possible tactic is the "camp tactic", which consists of the mercs letting the spies have unfavorable or hard to defend objectives for free, so that the mercs can focus on the remaining ones instead and by doing that create an unpenetratable fortress together. This tactic has the obvious risk of the spies just needing 1 more objective to win in most cases, as they already got the other ones for free. This tactic can also be adapted in later stages of the game sometimes, if the order of completed objectives by the spies allows it.
The merc's last tactic is "mobility". The mercs patrol the whole map or at least critical areas. They do it either solo, together or alternate between teaming up and being lone wolf, making their moves hard to predict for the spies. This style of play also makes it easier to call the merc mate for help, since in most cases the mercs stay at places where they can reach most areast as fast as possible (e.g. crossroads, etc).


Now what are the match ups if we try all 9 scenarios of tactics being applied? Left side is for Spy and Right side is for Merc:

LIMBO & STATIONARY: 1 v 1 twice with the same merc, while other merc gets left out
LIMBO & CAMP TACTIC: two times 1 v 2
LIMBO & MOBILITY: two times 1 v ??
SOLO COMBO & STATIONARY: 1 v 1 in paralell
SOLO COMBO & CAMP TACTIC: pointless
SOLO COMBO & MOBILITY: ??
TEAM UP & STATIONARY: 2 v 1, while other merc gets left out
TEAM UP & CAMP TACTIC: 2 v 2
TEAM UP & MOBILITY: 2 v ??

As you can see it is hard to get any real conclusive material like this, even with this simplified model. Now let's try to make the range a bit smaller, by leaving some points out. We can remove LIMBO, as that is a "tactic" which is merely caused by being inexperienced (or to be fair sometimes by having a "bad day" as well). From the remaining possibilities, CAMP TACTIC is dependent on the map and to apply it you need a map design that allows it (in scct that was club and river, for example), so we can leave it out as well, as it depends on the circumstances and as it can be avoided by the map design itself, it is not any more relevant for this discussion. This leaves us with the following:

SOLO COMBO & STATIONARY: 1 v 1 in paralell
SOLO COMBO & MOBILITY:  ??
TEAM UP & STATIONARY: 2 v 1, while other merc gets left out
TEAM UP & MOBILITY: 2 v ??

From these matchups the "MOBILITY" ones heavily depend on the details of the individual situations, so for simplicity let's say that they maintain a status quo, i.e. both teams have more or less equal chances. The same applies to "SOLO COMBO & STATIONARY", where the matchups become 1v1 + 1v1. The only unusual one here is "TEAM UP & STATIONARY", which seems to favor the spies, as one merc's existence is "wasted", because he is not able to do anything and is in most cases too far away as well, so even if the attacked merc tells his mate that he is attacked by 2 spies, the mate won't be able to arrive in time a lot of times. But of course this style of play does not always work, as the attacked mate's merc can instead use the time to place mines and spytraps in his area, which he could only do because he wasn't attacked, so in the end the advantage for the spies is tolerable.


But... now let's suppose it is actually 4v4 and the map is also proportionally bigger than the 2v2 counterpart... and now suppose that a "TEAM UP & STATIONARY" situation occurs... that is 4v1! The merc, unless he is much more skilled than the spies, will most likely not be able to defend his objective!


Well this was one veeery round about counter argument from me about the "3v3 or more" idea.


tl;dr: Spies can gang up on a single merc in games with more players, which can "break the game" in some cases.



Now people... I hope I'll get to see lots of arguments, pro and contra, about this topic. Have fun!
« Last Edit: May 02, 2014, 02:17:22 AM by NeoSuperior »
If there are any orthographic/grammatical errors in this post, you can keep them and, if you want, hang them over your bed ;)

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
 - Mike Godwin

Offline dYnAm1c

  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Praise mighty GabeN!
    • View Profile
Re: Is the idea of 3v3 or more even feasible?
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2014, 03:42:48 AM »
You would have to create completly new maps for more players because they are balanced for 2v2.
I would say for now 2v2 is enough, that is the most hardcore experience you can get because you know that you only have one partner and you have to rely on him.
More players automatically make this game less hardcore and not as nerve wrecking as it should be.

If there should be more modes than for example the 3v1 TAG mode would be a good idea because it was also quite popular in Chaos Theory and Pandorra Tomorrow, but SvM is not made for more than 4 players in one game.

Offline DU_DeadlyFlops

  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is the idea of 3v3 or more even feasible?
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2014, 02:59:42 PM »
TBH Double Agent was just such a massive black hole of suck that it burned me on 3v3. It is like the video game equivalent of getting food poisoning and never, ever wanting to eat that food again.

Plus, in terms of logistics, quality 3v3 games will be harder to get going.

Offline Agentx_O03

  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is the idea of 3v3 or more even feasible?
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2014, 10:00:50 AM »
I think there would be a lot of inter-activities. sounds pretty cool to me. Dont forget to watch my video and subscribe to my channel.