4v4 is ruined by noobs, quitters and afk

[Death From Above]

There is no way playing this anymore. It`s getting often to have this jokers on the team. Switching to 2v2 with friends, so I can`t have a heart attack.

[ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ]

thats because u are in the lower rank. i am level 5 i play 4v4 and its pretty intense. my teammates are try hards. all i had to do is send some tanks and army to defend. and capture as fast as i could. and my teammates help.

[PC Gaming Master Race]

can't believe there's lvl 100 guy spamming artilery and blame team for losing

[ArtSchool]

Well actually 4v4 is for noobs. above 2v2 the game is a spamfest + chaos with the resource accumulation and 100s of units pouring...

[butthead69]

Originally posted by Shu1984:

Well actually 4v4 is for noobs. above 2v2 the game is a spamfest + chaos with the resource accumulation and 100s of units pouring...

Cause we cant just have fun right? Be a noob if you wanna have fun....

[Eusebiu]

Yes i also got the same opinion as you. As soon as they lose a squad early game,they leave. GIve me a break.

[ShodaN]

Originally posted by Death From Above:

There is no way playing this anymore. It`s getting often to have this jokers on the team. Switching to 2v2 with friends, so I can`t have a heart attack.

Wow. Somebody actually learned something here. Trust me - the less random players, the better your experience will be.

[Aristotle Full Throttle]

I personally enjoy the chaos of combat in the 3vs3 and 4vs4 where one actually gets to see mass forces building up and I personally see spam in the individual (one player spams T-34/76s doesnd't imply that the team is, just him) as I don't spam units and 3vs3 and 4vs4 games require greater cooperation and teamwork, which is possible. The issue is that many players that play RTS and countless other strategy and tactical oriented games think they are just purebred studs that know the entire game, when they don't.

[HazardHawk]

Online play has not changed since it first began with Blizzard and StarCraft. You invariably have the spoiled brats that throw a tantrum and quit if their original plan fails. It is the way it has always been and the way it will always be until the gaming companies stop pampering to the idiots and and start some real penalties for dropping a game such as drop three and get banned for a week, come back and drop three again and get banned for a month, come back and do it a third time and lose six months. Make the exception require a copy of a service call report from your internet provider showing a service call for intermittant internet to have the bans removed. Simple, done, everybody that plays for victory can now play uninterupted...

[Marlowe-33]

Originally posted by Ranger_501st:

I personally enjoy the chaos of combat in the 3vs3 and 4vs4 where one actually gets to see mass forces building up and I personally see spam in the individual (one player spams T-34/76s doesnd't imply that the team is, just him) as I don't spam units and 3vs3 and 4vs4 games require greater cooperation and teamwork, which is possible. The issue is that many players that play RTS and countless other strategy and tactical oriented games think they are just purebred studs that know the entire game, when they don't.

Agree 100% 4 v 4 is AWESOME some times, i would say about 1 in 3 games for me is a fantastic experience, the other 2 normally have quitters, but sometimes it's ace.

[ArtSchool]

Well 4v4 is 3x the risks of 2v2s in terms of team quits, afks, etc. Since 1 out of 2 of my 2v2s do not even start, the chances of finding a good random 4v4 are...slim.

[Aristotle Full Throttle]

I disagree with that statement enigma as I faced several teams all the way back to August of 2013 that played with incredible teamwork. Just because a team can win without teamwork doesn't imply that they will win without using teamwork, especially when using teamwork increases the chances of winning even earlier instead of risking a 2vs1 that may result in your forces getting annihilated or beaten which opens your allies to 2vs1 scenarios. I saw plenty of soviet players abuse the Soviet Industry Doctrine when it first came out, heck there were battles where every player would use the same doctrine, which doesn't really spell teamwork or any actual strategic or tactical thought. However, the Soviet Industry Doctrine only needed a few tweaks that would have maintained its value while not nerfing it to hell as the developers did in the next patch (no offence to the developers, we all make mistakes).

That being said, I do agree that on average soviet players did require more teamwork than germans in the majority of patches over their german counterparts due to the imbalance, but that doesn't mean that the best german player is a soviet player. The best player plays as both factions throughout the patches so as to him or herself informed in his or her units weakenesses and strengths so they he or she may deploy their units to maximum efficiency.