Someone justify the logic to me that a 4 vs. 4 can count as 4 victories for the winning side

Only 1 battle is being fought!

4 vs. 4 should not have a greater impact upon a territory than 1 vs. 1, considering that the same number of units per side (24) can be deployed.

If anything, 2 vs. 2 and 4 vs. 4 victories should count as 1 victory per match, regardless of how many players are involved!

During said games, only 1 battle per match takes place, not 4

Yes I totally agree with you there.Each battle should be worth only 1 win not 4 or 2 for example.
Well they arent going to fix it now


check out the xpango link well worth it

I think the logic behind it is that those 4 people in that 1 battle could have played 4 battles during the same time frame and win each of them. If 4 vs 4 game = 1 win/loss (depending on the side), there wouldn't be any incentive in teaming up to "help" your faction win a territory (besides the fun factor of playing with your friends).
Now, the concept assumes that all 4 players from the winning side in a specific battle will win against the other players in 1 vs 1 battles, which is not necessarily true. But I think it was a good decision to do it the way it is right now.

i think it should only count for 1 becuase what about the people that just jump into a 4v4 to lose the game on purpose thats 4 wins for the other faction thats and easy way to cheat for your side just go over and ruin the game or what about the people that dont like 4v4 and only play 1v1 or 2v2 if they get the same about of games they are still way behind by 2x or 4x as many wins

which is exactly what i think it happening right now with a certain seabase under JSF control

I agree, why should a couple "noobs" who can't play without a partner be more important than my battles?

Not that all people who do 2v2/4v4 are bad...just most of them I get stuck with are.

quote:

Originally posted by Nidole:
I think the logic behind it is that those 4 people in that 1 battle could have played 4 battles during the same time frame and win each of them. If 4 vs 4 game = 1 win/loss (depending on the side), there wouldn't be any incentive in teaming up to "help" your faction win a territory (besides the fun factor of playing with your friends).
Now, the concept assumes that all 4 players from the winning side in a specific battle will win against the other players in 1 vs 1 battles, which is not necessarily true. But I think it was a good decision to do it the way it is right now.

This & because 4 Commanders are being defeated instead of 1
Defeating 1 isn't da same as defeating 4

but its still the same number of units, and the number of players shouldnt have anything to do with it

it's still one meeting engagement between multiple people, 1 exchange of fire over 1 territory at 1 time.

therefore, 1 battle.

look at Halo. 16 players, 8 vs. 8. are you telling me that when i win a big team battle, I win 8 times? no. i win 1 time, because it's 1 engagement. same as here. 8 players, 1 engagement, 1 battle.

each player get a victory, 8v8, 8 wins divide by da 8 players is 1 win per, plus like you said a 1 on 1 engagement each player has another player that's going against them

yes, but there has been only 1 meeting between players

only 1 battle has been fought

only 1 victory should be credited to the sides per engagement, no matter how many players are present

there is only 1 meeting. there is only 1 battle, not 4, not 8, 1!

yea its one victory but a win for all 4 commandors not the faction thats how it should be and yes their are 4 people to play against but thats a team it takes a team to get 1 win not a team to get 4 wins in ONE game

1 game =4 wins come on that right there makes no sense

like the title says 1 battle=1 match not 1 match=4 battles eveyone is playing the same game

I can see where you guys are coming from; but if we accept the fact that 1 game = 1 win, since we have 4 players involved on a side, should there be assigned a 1/4 of a win each (1 win / 4 players). It comes down again to the "advantages" of playing by yourself vs with 1 or 3 more people. Why would anyone go "multiplayer" if they can just hang out by themselves and:
1. find games even faster
2. get 1 win vs 1/4 of a win (if my assumption above is accepted).
3. have "most" of their units getting experience (you have to bring more or less each unit type to deal with the rock-paper-scissor thing, whereas in 2vs2/4vs4, you can be the "rock" and let your teammates be the paper or scissor)

On the Halo 3 example, I am not familiar with it, but if it's like Cod4, it doesn't involve a "persistent world" like EndWar. The rules that apply there, might not necessarily apply here.
I can also give a counter-example that involves Fifa 09 club mode. There are 15 divisions of 50 teams each and obviously every team wants to win the division 1 rank 1 spot. Now in real life football/soccer, 1 win = 3 pts, 1 draw = 1 pt, 1 loss = 0 pt. But in fifa, in order to encourage people to play with friends online, here are the adjustments they made:
1. You cannot play the club mode by yourself, you need at least 2 other peoples (up to 10 people can play together).
2. The more people in your team when playing a specific game, the more point you gain/loss for winning/losing that game.

The underlying assumption is: you can play by yourself, which is fine, but we are going to give credits to those that go the extra step and organize themselves to play together, etc. Winning a war in ToW is a team effort and I think that's what they tried to implement with those rules.

For the cheaters argument, "where there is a will, there is a way". Before we got 4vs4 on ps3 (don't remember if 2vs2 was already available or came in as a patch), people were already complaining about cheaters in 1vs1. The random person joining and ruining a game is a problem I will agree with, but it's more of a "matchmaking issue" and there are ways to avoid it (no quick match if you are 3 in a room and want to play 4vs4 for example; might as well wait for your 4th partner or split in 3 *1vs1* or 1 *2vs2* and 1 *1vs1*).

At the end of the day, "the truth is in the eye of the beholder". So I might not convince anyone (except General_Mexican I guess), but I sure convinced myself, lol

there you go, each player gets a victory not .25 of it to make one
1 point per player which adds up to 4
thank you Nidole

One match should be one point, people can play 2/4v2/4 if they can't play alone or if they want to play with friends, but I work just as hard(harder actually) to win in 1v1 and should help my faction the same.

as if it was 1 point for 2v2 / 4v4 it would make it easyer and more effective for the people who cheat to level up units and to win maps like what is the point its only a game ? and if u dont like the way 4v4 is then dont play 4v4 i like playing 4v4 talking to friends waiting for a game and playing the game rather than sitting in 1v1 if u dont like playing with randoms then meet friends and play with them

but think if there is a cheater(which it only takes 1 person in a 4v4 to mess it up for that side) in a 4v4 if the game only counts as 1 point then there is no point in going to 4v4 to mess it up they can do it in 1v1 but since 4v4 are worth 4 wins to a faction that 1 person comes in there and screws it up and BAM 4 wins for the faction you want to win...its total bull**** right there that one person screws 3 other people trying to win over because they are to much of a bitch to win on the on there own faction

but if u think about it more the 4 points and 4 players is helping new players instead of playing 1v1 with they can meet new people who can maybe help them level up there units and teach them how to play but if 1 point u get the loners like b camping 1v1 all the time waiting for newbs to quick match like he said he just plays 1v1 btw its only a game what kinda sad person wants to make an alt acc to mess with the tow lol like have yous nothing else better to do?

cheating has nothing to do with it

the focus is on a single engagement

1 battle = 1 point, not 4

Some of the arguments above mentioned that 1 battle = 4 wins will facilitate cheating. That's why Outlaw replied back. .
But on the issue itself, we should call a truce.

i think a person would gain more experience playing 1v1 because the better players like mathisatva and numbhand and astaboy rather play 1v1 and being able to control 12 units is more of a challange and if you can master that then 4v4 is useless to you and cheating does continue the topic of why a 4v4 should only equal 1 point also what about Irontom he has a main account on russia but was playing on his irontom3_ec account at paris to try and keep jsf from winning and i had played a 4v4 with out the aid of 3 friends and ended up with 2 people that wanted to play and a 4th that sat thier with the 2 artillery and the cv doing nothin and it screwed us over and we lost so yes 1 BATTLE = 1 POINT thats how it should be...