3 vs. 3 vs. 3 would be a more innovative system than 5 vs. 5, and would lead to more strategic choices. That said, it would have its own share of problems, and I am curious as to how you would address them. Most important is the fact that a 3-player team is far more vulnerable to someone who leaves, lags out or is simply not as good as the opposition. Any thoughts on how to prevent a poor or departed ally from bringing down a team?
I would like 3 v 3 v 3 for the same reason as Lord Nightbringer. It will make the game more strategic and better to play than if your just trying to get to the same place over and over.
Lord Nightbringer3 vs. 3 vs. 3 would be a more innovative system than 5 vs. 5, and would lead to more strategic choices. That said, it would have its own share of problems, and I am curious as to how you would address them. Most important is the fact that a 3-player team is far more vulnerable to someone who leaves, lags out or is simply not as good as the opposition. Any thoughts on how to prevent a poor or departed ally from bringing down a team?
Well I wanted the map to be less Assasination type heroes and more troops leader type heroes. So you can keep upgrading the units and researching spells for them.
It would be easier to get teams together as you only need 2 friends.
If one team is attacking you, the 3rd team can attack them back and take advantage of them being vulnerable.
Also so long I make triggers where leavers gold is shared amongst his allies at an interval, other players can control him and make sure he doesnt fall behind. 1 extra Hero controlled between 2 players shouldnt be to difficult, althoguht if 2ppl left it could be a problem. But saying that if 2 ppl leave in a 5v5, making it 5v3 it generally becomes very unfair, assuming all the players are good.
