Why not do a 1 team vs 1 team vs 1 team or 1v1v1. It allows a high skill capped team to be able to win in this battle. You could do to an amount of kills, or everyone has a certain amount of lives. I feel like 1 team vs 1 team is fun but needs to get better. Which is why i think a 1v1v1 would be a fun and awesome game mode!
Cale0174 votesBecause if you had three teams playing, two of them could gang up on the third and completely take them out of the game entirely.
disregardable1 votesHow do you prevent that? By making an objective that disincentivizes grouping. How do you do that? Having more lanes than there are people on the map. Another suggestion I read is to have a triangle map with 3 bases on the corners and a nexus in the center. Only allow minions to attack the nexus, so that the two other teams must use separate paths to have a chance at winning.
The solution I prefer of course is death match mode. No teams, just you vs. 9 players. Last person standing wins.
Cale0171 votes[{quoted}](name=The AFK Farmer,realm=NA,application-id=LFfTlAky,discussion-id=hBUyRJEK,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-01-01T03:30:53.683+0000)
How do you prevent that? By making an objective that disincentivizes grouping. How do you do that? Having more lanes than there are people on the map. Another suggestion I read is to have a triangle map with 3 bases on the corners and a nexus in the center. Only allow minions to attack the nexus, so that the two other teams must use separate paths to have a chance at winning.
The solution I prefer of course is death match mode. No teams, just you vs. 9 players. Last person standing wins.
Too bad no matter how you designed it, it would still come down to two teams being able to focus only on attacking the third team to eliminate them early.
disregardable1 votesSo tell me, how would you do that in either scenario? When it's impossible to stop at least one set of split pushers or when you literally can't group if you want to win?
8yVkmwxq0D1 votesYou can also disable all-chat, so you can only chat with your teammates. This makes it harder to coordinate with the other teams.
Cale0171 votesYou can also disable all-chat, so you can only chat with your teammates. This makes it harder to coordinate with the other teams.
Yes, because people can't just choose not to attack one team and focus on the other and have that be recognized as what they're trying to go for.
8yVkmwxq0D1 votesThat's silly, if one team was focusing on the other and not even attacking my team, I'd just hit them.
Cale0171 votesThat's silly, if one team was focusing on the other and not even attacking my team, I'd just hit them.
Alright.
So then what happens when the team you're not attacking anymore decides to attack you while the other enemy joins in?
The issue with this entire concept is that it relies on people sticking to the idea of playing the field fairly, but the League community time and again have shown a tendency to go for cheese whenever possible to increase their winrates.
8yVkmwxq0D1 votesWell that's the whole point of FFA... Anything can happen and you have to deal with it. Unless 2 teams are friends with each other, it's hard to know exactly what someone has in mind if you can't talk to them.
Cale0171 votesWell that's the whole point of FFA... Anything can happen and you have to deal with it. Unless 2 teams are friends with each other, it's hard to know exactly what someone has in mind if you can't talk to them.
But the point of balancing this game is to give valid counterplay options. A team of five can't defend against an allied force of ten. Having to "deal with it" is exactly the kind of balance issues that Riot tries to solve when they can. No one should have to just "deal with it" with anything in this game short of someone who's just insanely fed, and that's more a punishment for allowing them to get that way than anything else. If Riot, or the majority of the community, were alright with that sort of a "deal with it" mindset then there wouldn't be bans available before ranked play and in tournaments because everyone should have to just "deal with" whatever champions are in an unfair position at any given time.
This is a strategy game. Putting people in a position like that isn't fun to play against, and isn't fair to win with.
8yVkmwxq0D1 votesWhat's your idea of a fair FFA? The only way to make it fair is if team 1 is only allowed to attack team 2, team 2 is only allowed to attack team 3, and team 3 is only allowed to attack team 1.
This wouldn't be an official format, so I don't really see the need to balance things specifically for an FFA. FFAs are by nature chaotic, and the whole point of them is to try to survive, whether that's by teaming up, biding your time, or attacking a distracted enemy.
Cale0171 votesWhat's your idea of a fair FFA? The only way to make it fair is if team 1 is only allowed to attack team 2, team 2 is only allowed to attack team 3, and team 3 is only allowed to attack team 1.
This wouldn't be an official format, so I don't really see the need to balance things specifically for an FFA. FFAs are by nature chaotic, and the whole point of them is to try to survive, whether that's by teaming up, biding your time, or attacking a distracted enemy.
FFA and team do not go together. The point of a "free for all" is that all players can do what they want to who they want. Everyone is put into the same area and the one with the most points at the end of the game loses.
Trying to translate that into a team objective control based game doesn't work because it's no longer a free for all. There are now three teams working alongside each other. People are limited in who they're allowed to attack, therefore it's no longer a free for all. It isn't chaotic anymore because there's structure and cooperation going on. If you put fifteen people on a map and tell them to kill each other, and they team up for that, it's one thing. But putting fifteen people on a map teamed up into groups of three, and telling them that the name of the game is not get the most kills but rather keep your base from being invaded the entire game changes.
Team objective control and free for all to not go together. There's a reason that King of the Hill is the only objective mode in most games that puts people against one another. There are individual scores being kept around a central objective that everyone has equal access to either defend or attack.
Three bases in three corners is not the same idea. It's not chaos, it's just an extra team that can immediately pick one of the other two teams and agree to take out the third team to instantly wipe them off of the map.
Moreover, what happens when one of the three teams' nexuses are destroyed? Does the game end right there? Does the team who's nexus was lost get to leave the game and load into another or are they stuck for another twenty to thirty minutes while the other two teams duke it out?
You're confusing the points of different game modes and trying to put some together that are mechanically exclusive to one another and ignoring the fundamental flaws in a three way battle.
8yVkmwxq0D1 votesIt's not a direct parallel, but I've played a lot of Warcraft III team FFA like 2v2v2 (or more). It definitely does not automatically turn into 2vs1. You're assuming that this will happen all the time, but there is no way you can make a claim like that. What is the point of someone queueing up for an FFA if they just want it to become a 1v1 anyway?
And yeah, sometimes it's possible that 2 teams would team up, but why isn't that okay? That comes with the territory in an FFA. It still doesn't mean that that would happen in every single matchup.
There would also be situations where you'd team up with another team, then during a fight you'd notice that some of their members are low. Are you saying you wouldn't kill them off and take out one of their turrets? This is what makes FFA interesting.
Cale0171 votesIt's not a direct parallel, but I've played a lot of Warcraft III team FFA like 2v2v2 (or more). It definitely does not automatically turn into 2vs1. You're assuming that this will happen all the time, but there is no way you can make a claim like that. What is the point of someone queueing up for an FFA if they just want it to become a 1v1 anyway?
And yeah, sometimes it's possible that 2 teams would team up, but why isn't that okay? That comes with the territory in an FFA. It still doesn't mean that that would happen in every single matchup.
There would also be situations where you'd team up with another team, then during a fight you'd notice that some of their members are low. Are you saying you wouldn't kill them off and take out one of their turrets? This is what makes FFA interesting.
The problem is that this isn't WoW. The communities operate differently, however many similarities, or shared users, they may have. I can pretty safely make a claim like that because this is a community that spams the easiest possible paths to victory so much that the people who run the game have to step in and slap them on the wrists for it. So much that the people running it have to come out and admit that they're making these changes because no one shuts up about it because the problems are so widespread.
I can pretty much guarantee you that it's going to turn into a 2v1 scenario in at least 80% of games. And no matter which way you cut it, eventually one of the three teams are going to fall first and that still leaves people staring at their screens for the next twenty minutes it's going to take for the remaining two teams to finish the fight.
If it were a simple team deathmatch style of game, sure. I can see that working. Because then it's not about pushing lanes or going for objectives, it's about going for kills. And everyone is going to do everything they can to go for kills. But so long as it remains an objective based game, that isn't going to happen because the kills aren't what wins the match. Completely overwhelming a team and taking their turrets, inhibs, and nexus is what wins.
tl;dr team deathmatch is k, team capture-the-flag is not
Toothless Lion1 votesA free for all game mode could be fun or a 4 team mode, but as others said 1v1v1 is difficult to balance without one team getting shat on by two.
ßongs1 votesI like the free for all idea. Maybe have 10 players and they each get to ban a champion. Last champion standing wins.
Xonra1 votesAs neat as it would be Riot won't do it because they won't want to balance around it, which is the only real reason most of the game modes we get now and then aren't permanent, like URF that people scream for, because had it stayed for another week or so half the champions would have been banned.
As fun as it is it just won't happen, far too much work for Riot (just being honest) when there isn't much reward for doing so. A new map is a big deal and the lap actual new map they did was dominion and...well no one plays that. Not trying to be negative just stating it from their perspective.
No Howling abyss wasn't new, they reskinned the tutorial map No twisted treeline wasn't a new map, it was a reskin of the old 3 v 3 map.
