Battle.net

IMO this is the only way to make 4v4 even remotely playable. I dont get why not that many people are complaining about 4v4. If you are up against a full Zerg team and they cheese all together then there simply is no way to win the match (unless they dont execute their cheese right)

IMO, the only way to make 4v4 actually competitive and playable is to implement an unpassable barrier for the first 10 minutes of the game so ling rush/roach rush at one player while his teammates are unable to assist, isnt a gg anymore. Seriously, 4v4 is about all I play besides custom matches but I run into cheesing Zerg players so often (who cant be countered due to a full team focussing on one ramp) I start to dislike normal gameplay more and more.

4 words

stop complaining play 1v1

What makes you think a team of 4 zergs will be beatable in a 10 minute no rush situation?

4 words

stop complaining play 1v1

''1v1'' are three words.

So if a gamemode is broken, I should just play something else? No it should be fixed.

w8 w8 w8 .....w8 ...so you are saying you actually want to let a team of 4 zerg to expand like crazy and only engage them when they have a full economy .....seriously dude ...thats the best thing you can do for a zerg =))

Looks like OP lost to an all zerg team and would rather blame imbalance.

23/04/2012 16:45Posted by Polaris

IMO, the only way to make 4v4 actually competitive and playable is to implement an unpassable barrier for the first 10 minutes of the game so ling rush/roach rush at one player while his teammates are unable to assist, isnt a gg anymore. Seriously, 4v4 is about all I play besides custom matches but I run into cheesing Zerg players so often (who cant be countered due to a full team focussing on one ramp) I start to dislike normal gameplay more and more.

Actually I have played a 4v4 where the 4 zerg players went 6 pool, destroyed 3 bases and died miserably because the 4th player was teching DTs.
That memory still makes me smile after all that time ^^

team games are for scrubs who need to complain about their team mates if they lose.

23/04/2012 18:36Posted by qui

Looks like OP lost to an all zerg team and would rather blame imbalance.

What else is there to blame. A full Zerg team is UNSTOPPABLE. Doesnt matter how good you are, Id bet all my money that a random group of Zerg players would be the very best Grandmaster players in a 4v4 if they all ling rush. Its pretty obvious that an early rush is unstoppable anyway. In 4v4, there usually are 2 ramps (in the worst scenario, 3 ramps with 2 giant ones) which means 2 players defend 1 ramp. If a full Zerg team cheeses, then its 2v4 on a ramp thats too big to wall off in time anyway. In the best case, you end up with 2 players eliminated resulting in a 2v4 game for the rest of the game.

I dont get why not that many people are complaining about 4v4.

Team games srys bsnyz

23/04/2012 21:59Posted by Polaris

Looks like OP lost to an all zerg team and would rather blame imbalance.

What else is there to blame.

Your skill.

A full Zerg team is UNSTOPPABLE.

No it isn't.

Its pretty obvious that an early rush is unstoppable anyway.

No it isn't

In the best case, you end up with 2 players eliminated resulting in a 2v4 game for the rest of the game

Correct, 2v4 where the 2 has much better economy and tech and can roll over the remaining zergs easily.

If they have learnt how to play the game, of course.

Yes, let zerg expand unharrased for 10 minutes, good luck dealing with 4x200 supply roaches at the 12 minute mark when you have a couple of immortals out.

23/04/2012 22:14Posted by Resist

I dont get why not that many people are complaining about 4v4.

Team games srys bsnyz

FYI not everyone spends every single second of his gaming time on 1v1. There are loads of people who only do team games, who only do custom matches or who only bought the game for the Campaign.

4v4 is played by many people so theres nothing wrong with giving my opinion about it. Perhaps a barrier isnt the best option because one race gains more advantage out of an FE than the other, but as it is now most early rushes are ridicilously difficult, if not impossible, to deal with. The worst maps are the kinds where the team is split up and theres no way for one couple to support the other couple in very early game

You keep saying it's impossible. But if you improved your play, you would find it's not impossible.

23/04/2012 22:46Posted by qui

You keep saying it's impossible. But if you improved your play, you would find it's not impossible.

You cant just blame it on a player. As described above in very early game couples often cant support eachother yet, so in order to hold off a rush you'd have to be able to hold off two players on your own, on a ramp thats bigger. If you put a Grandmaster up against 2 low-skilled players, but he has to wall off a bigger ramp and the 2 low-skilled players do a ling rush the GM will lose, no doubt.

You cant answer my points because you are terrible at the same and want to blame imbalance.

Rather than crying on the forums, check your replays and think how you can improve your game.

Anyway, you keep theorycrafting about grandmasters, ramps and such.

But the fact of the matter is I know from experience that you can win after a 4x Z rush if you have a competent team.

That's all there is to it, it's not imbalanced.

Just improve your play.

You cant answer my points because you are terrible at the same and want to blame imbalance.

Rather than crying on the forums, check your replays and think how you can improve your game.

Perhaps its time for you to go do some 4v4s then against a full Zerg team that does a ling rush with Roach backup. It simply IS NOT POSSIBLE. You are basically saying that a person in 4v4 would have to be capable of holding off 2 ling rushes at once in a 1v1 with a ramp thats bigger.

Unless you have a Zerg right next to you , youre so screwed on most 4v4 maps. If Terran cant wall off in time theyre screwed. If Protoss cant wall off in time they arent neccesarily screwed but they are against multiple players.

Look I have better things to do than keep repeating the same. You keep saying how one should be able to hold off 4 Zergs at once but you never really give examples of how that would work out.